Janoski v. Northwestern Improvement Co.

176 F. 215, 99 C.C.A. 569, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4242
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 7, 1910
DocketNo. 1,768
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 F. 215 (Janoski v. Northwestern Improvement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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]*216diameter, 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:

“I was blaeksmithlng, helping around, the machinery in all kinds of work. John Janoski was a carpenter, electrician, looked after machinery, and certain parts of the work we helped each other in. He got hurt on Saturday between [217]*217¡mil 3 o'clock in the afternoon. .John and I wero out in the blacksmith shop that day eating our dinner — we were late to dinner — when Ilosko, the bunker boss and machinery foreman for the mine, came over to the blacksmith shop and wanted ns to splice the rope on the big transmission wheel. We went over to the bunker to do this. There was there at the time a fellow who was picking slate, a couple of Italians, George Dorke, Ilosko, and 1, and John Janoski .md Ur. McDowell came with us. When Janoski and I first came there, we took the tightener up with the block and tackle. Mr. McDowell was there at the time. This tightener was taken up with a block and tackle to give slack to the rope, and bring it down on the floor, so we could splice it. We raised that up, and the rope was not exactly on that side. We had to turn the wheel before we raised that up, so that the rope came on the side so we could splice it. The part of the rope that needed splicing was not on the left side of the wheel, but was further over, and you had to turn the wheel to get it where you could splice it. We then raised the tightener up, took the rope off-there to go ahead with our splicing. While we were doing this the transmission wheel was moving a little. Tt pulled the rope out of our hands while we were splicing. We decided to put something in the wheel to keep it from turning around. Ilosko, Mr. McDowell, Janoski, and I were all there, and we all said, ‘We got to block that wheel.’ We put a piece of pipe under the spoke in the big wheel on the upper platform. To loosen the rope we raised the tightener up. When the rope would come off here, it would come down on the floor, and we spliced it right there on the floor. We were putting the pipe in there (indicating the spoke of the wheel). John Janoski put the pipe in, and put the pipe right in lilis spoke here (referring to the spoke in the big wheel). He put the pipe right across here, maybe eight feet long. The pipe was lying on the platform ail the time. We wero trying to put the groove in that side. Janoski j>ut this pipe that was lying there through the wheel. At this time Mr. McDowell and Ilosko were standing down below where Janoski was. There was uoiliing to prevent us from seeing what Janoski was doing. I saw Janoski put the pipe in. After Janoski liad dono that he came down on the floor, and we commenced to splice tlie rope. It probably took half or three-quarters of an hour to sillico the rope. McDowell was there all the time, from start to finish. After the splicing was done, Janoski went on top, loosened tiie tightener, and let it down. I was underneath, holding the rope. 1 was standing right there (indicating platform on model directly under wheel), on the right side of the wheel. We put the rope here (indicating), after Janoski lot the tighten or down. We have to turn ilie wheel once or twice on the shaft before it tightens the rope up. Tittle kinks form in the rope, made by the splicing. After Jan-oslci let the tightener down, he went up to straighten the kinks, put the rope in the groove. He could not reach from lielow. had 1o go up. Ho straightoned the kinks out, so that when the wheel started the rope would run in the proper groove. If we did not do this, it would tangle and tear everything.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 F. 215, 99 C.C.A. 569, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janoski-v-northwestern-improvement-co-ca9-1910.