Janoski v. Northwestern Improvement Co.

176 F. 215, 99 C.C.A. 569, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4242
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 7, 1910·No. No. 1,768·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs in the court below; the defendant in error being the defendant there. We are of the opinion that the trial court erred in directing, as it did, a verdict for the defendant. The action was for damages for the death of one John Janoski, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the deceased was employed by the defendant as carpenter, electrician, and machinist in and about its coal mines in Pierce county, Wash., where the defendant maintained a large transmission wheel, about 12 feet in [216] diameter, over which a rope ran, furnishing the power to certain of its machinery; that on October 5, 1907, Janoski was directed by the defendant’s superintendent to go upon an elevated platform surrounding the wheel, which platform was, according to the evidence, about 4 feet wide, and to remove certain twists and kinks from the rope, and also to remove a piece of 2-inch pipe which had been stuck through the spokes of the wheel, and that while Janoski was engaged in that work the superintendent caused the wheel to be suddenly started without warning to the deceased, resulting in his fall and subsequent death. The answer of the defendant, besides denying the allegations of negligence on its part, pleaded, among cither things, contributory negligence on the part of Janoski, which affirmative defense constituted the ground of the court’s ruling, as .will be seen from its opinion which is as follows:

“I think the defense of contributory negligence on the part of' the deceased has been fully made out, in all views that may be taken of the ease, by the uncontradieted evidence and.by the testimony of witnesses who were there and have been called as witnesses far the plaintiff. He was in a situation which required care on his part, as well as eyery man there, for his own safety and that of those who were working with him. If he knew that the wheel was about to be started in operation with the gas pipe block in. that it was liable to cause injury to the machinery, or inflict an injury to himself or any person there, he was under obligation to cheek it. All he had to do was to say, ‘Wait.’ One word would have been sufficient to delay the starting of the machine until he could have removed the pipe. He must be assumed to know that the gas pipe was there; for, according to the testimony, he put it there, and was in the best position for any one to see it. He was the one who would have removed it, if it had been removed, and in disregard of the warnings which others had, and which he could have heard if he had been paying attention, it must be assumed that he was for the time being inattentive, to permit the machine to be started without first removing the gas pipe; that not doing so was negligence, and at least a contributing cause of ‘the injury, if that piece of pipe caused the injury. I grant the motion.”

As a matter of course the court cannot, in such cases, undertake to weigh conflicting evidence, and the law is well settled that in passing upon a motion to take a case from the jury, it is the duty of the court to take “that view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is moved to direct a verdict, and from that evidence, and the inferences reasonably and justifiably to be drawn therefrom, determine whether or not, under the law, a verdict might be found for the party having the onus.” Mt. Adams & E. P. Inclined Railway Company v. Lowery, 74 Fed. 463, 20 C. C. A. 596; Jenkins & Reynolds Company v. Alpena Portland Cement Company, 147 Fed. 641, 77 C. C. A. 625, and numerous cases there cited.

It appears from the record that there was testimony going to show that one McDowell was the superintendent and one Hosko was the machinery foreman of the mine, and that about 25 or 30 feet out from and to one side of a point underneath the wheel- was what was called a picking table, at which workmen picked out slate. John Urick, a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs, testified, among other things, as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Janoski v. Northwestern Improvement Co., 176 F. 215, 99 C.C.A. 569, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4242 (9th Cir. 1910).

176 F. 215 (Janoski v. Northwestern Improvement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Metropolitan Club v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
220 P. 818 (Washington Supreme Court, 1923)
Port Blakely Mill Co. v. Royal Ins.
186 F. 716 (Ninth Circuit, 1911)