Sanborn v. Madera Flume & Trading Co.

Citations

• 70 Cal. 261
• 11 P. 710
• 1886 Cal. LEXIS 778

Syllabus

<p>Employee, and Employee—Defective Machinery — Liability of Mill-owner. — It is the duty of the owner of a saw-mill to furnish suitable and safe machinery for the use of his employees, and he cannot divest himself of liability for injuries to an employee, caused by defective machinery, by intrusting the performance of that duty to his servants.</p> <p>Id.—Knowledge by Employee of Defects. —The owner of the mill is not liable for such injuries to an employee if the latter knew or had the means of knowledge of the defects in the machinery, and of the dangers and risks likely to result from its use.</p> <p>Id. •—Danger of Employment—Instruction.—The action was brought by an employee in a saw-mill against his employer to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by defective machinery. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that “ when a party works with or in the vicinity of a piece of machinery insufficient for the purpose for which it is employed, or for any reason unsafe, with a knowledge or means of knowledge of its condition, he takes the risk incident to the employment in which he is thus engaged, and cannot maintain an action for injuries sustained arising out of accidents resulting from such defective condition of the machinery.” Held, that the instruction, was properly refused, as it failed to include as one of the conditions upon which the plaintiff could not maintain the action that he knew or might have known that his employment involved danger to himself.</p> <p>Id. —Negligence of Employee — Question for Jury. —In such an action, the question whether the plaintiff was negligent or not is one of fact for the jury, and the knowledge of the plaintiff of the defectiveness of the machinery is only one of the probative facts from which the ultimate fact of negligence must be determined.</p> <p>Id.—Expert in Saw-mills — Evidence.—On the trial, a witness for the plaintiff testified in rebuttal, after showing himself qualified as an