Court Opinion

ID: 8309404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:46:15.990846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:39.829072
License: Public Domain

o-resham, D. J.,
(orally.) The substance of the complaint is that the defendant’s machinery was defective and unsafe; that while operating the same with reasonable care, and without knowledge of its defective character, the deceased received the injuries which caused his death, and that the defendant knew of the character of the machinery, or with proper diligence might have known it. So far as he could do so by the exercise of reasonable care, the defendant was bound to supply his factory with suitable and safe machinery. If he failed to do this, and required his employe to operate machinery which was unsound and unsafe, and in doing so the latter, while exercising ordinary care and prudence, received injuries which caused his death, his personal representative has a right of action for the benefit of those who have sustained loss from the injury and death. When the defendant’s negligence in supplying his employes with unsafe machinery has caused the death of the latter, the law will not allow the defendant to say— as in effect he does say in this answer — “It is true that my machinery was defective and unsafe, and my negligence caused the death of my employe, but I am not liable to those who have suffered from the loss of his life, because I had a contract with my employe which secured to me the right to supply him with defective and unsafe machinery, and to be negligent. ” Such a contract is void as against public policy.
If there was no negligence the defendant needed no contract to exempt him from liability; if he was negligent, the contract set out in his answer will be of no avail.