Monforton v. Detroit Pressed Brick Co.

71 N.W. 586, 113 Mich. 39, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 712
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMay 25, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 71 N.W. 586 (Monforton v. Detroit Pressed Brick Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Monforton v. Detroit Pressed Brick Co., 71 N.W. 586, 113 Mich. 39, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 712 (Mich. 1897).

Opinion

Moore, J.

Charles Monforton was on March 20, 1894, killed in defendant’s brick yard by an uncovered rapidly revolving shaft. This suit was brought by his mother, who had been appointed administratrix, to recover damages for his death. After the testimony was all in, the defendant requested the trial judge to direct a verdict in its favor. The court declined to do this, but upon his [40]*40own motion submitted this question to the jury: “Was the uncovered shafting open to Charles Monforton’s observation during the period of about 20 days in which he was in defendant’s employ before his death?” and directed the jury to answer the question “Yes.” He then submitted the case to the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; then, upon motion of the defendant, set the general verdict aside, and entered a verdict upon the special finding in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

It is evident from an inspection of the record that the learned trial judge was in doubt whether the plaintiff had made a case or noj;, and desired to resolve that doubt before directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; that afterwards he concluded a verdict ought to have been directed in favor of the defendant, for that is the practical result of what was done by him. We shall dispose of the case as though he had directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. If there was any testimony which required the case to be submitted to the jury, the judgment should be set aside; otherwise it should stand. All of the testimony is returned with the record, from which it appears that Charles Monforton, at the time of his death, was 14 years and 8 months old. He was an intelligent boy. One of the witnesses speaks of him as a smart boy. He had never worked in a place where there was shafting or machinery until he entered the employ of defendant on the 1st day of March. The accompanying rough sketch will illustrate the situation of the brick yard.

Young Monforton was employed from March 1st to March 16th in the press room, dusting off bricks with a brush. That was all he was engaged to do at that time. There was testimony tending to show that upon the morning in question he and two other boys were employed to unload a car load of wood. The wood was taken from a car, and placed in a cart, Yivian working in the car, and Kumm driving. They started from southwest of the yard, drove east along a wagon road which runs along the

[41]*41

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

Related

Grout v. Ruskin
207 F. 273 (Sixth Circuit, 1913)
Lehto v. Atlantic Mining Co.
116 N.W. 405 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)
Swick v. Ætna Portland Cement Co.
111 N.W. 110 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Epelett v. City of Sault Ste. Marie
108 N.W. 360 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
Ertz v. Pierson
89 N.W. 680 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Barr v. Guelph Patent Cask Co.
88 N.W. 640 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 N.W. 586, 113 Mich. 39, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monforton-v-detroit-pressed-brick-co-mich-1897.