Court Opinion

ID: 9678538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:22:35.663253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.488705
License: Public Domain

Larson, C. J.
(dissenting) — I must respectfully dissent herein in what is perhaps a futile effort to halt our unreasonable trend toward calling every farm implement defective if it can in any way be connected to the injury of an employee. I had some misgivings in the recent case of Frederick v. Goff, 251 Iowa 290, 100 N.W.2d 624, but now I am quite sure we are making the farmer an insurer of his employees. Everyone who knows anything about farm implements knows full well that the parts become worn, and covers which have nothing to do with the mechanical operation are lost or left off. Any mechanical device needs attention and minor adjustments. However, when by some foolish and unnecessary act by the employee, the employee is injured while attending that machine, we now practically invite a jury to grant him recovery by calling the farm implement defective. Such conclusions are not at all realistic or just.
If we continue this liberal trend, the farmer should, and no doubt will, desire coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
In this ease the loss of a shield high on the machine did not affect its operation. If the loss of grain which spilled out was *1060substantial, the machine should have been stopped and the temporary cover installed. It certainly was unnecessary and improper to attempt to place thereon such a temporary shield while the machine was in operation. I would not hold the sheller a defective machine nor permit recovery here.
Hays and Peterson, JJ., join in this dissent.