Albert v. McKay & Co.
174 Cal. 451, 163 P. 666, 1917 Cal. LEXIS 818 (1917)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's duty to provide an employee with a reasonably safe place to work does not apply when the employee himself creates the unsafe condition that leads to his injury, such as by removing a safety guard.
Facts:
- Frank H. Albert was employed as a saw-filer for McKay & Co., a lumber mill corporation.
- Power for the machinery in his upper-floor filing-room came from a shaft on the floor below.
- This lower-floor shaft had a collar with a set-screw that protruded five-eighths of an inch.
- In the course of his duties, Albert had to work on the lower floor to adjust bolts holding his machinery in place.
- A few days before the accident, Albert personally removed a protective guard and drip-pan that had been covering the set-screw.
- Albert removed the guard using a borrowed bar in order to facilitate a change in the position of the shaft.
- On March 10, 1913, Albert’s clothing was caught on the unguarded, revolving shaft, pulling him into the machinery and causing his death.
- No one witnessed the accident occur.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's widow, as administratrix of his estate, filed a lawsuit against McKay & Co. in a trial court for damages, alleging negligent killing.
- The complaint included three counts of negligence.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which the court granted as to the third count.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the remaining counts in the amount of eight thousand dollars, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
- The defendant, McKay & Co., appealed the judgment to the reviewing court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer liable for negligence for an employee's death when the evidence shows the employee himself created the hazardous condition by removing a safety guard, and there is no substantial evidence that the employer negligently started the machinery that caused the fatal injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloss, J.
No, an employer is not liable for negligence when the employee created the hazardous condition and there is no evidence of other negligent acts by the employer. The employer's duty to furnish a safe workplace does not apply when the employee prepares the work area himself and, in doing so, creates the hazard. Uncontradicted testimony established that McKay & Co. had provided a guard for the set-screw, but the decedent, Albert, had removed it himself a few days prior to the accident. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held negligent for the unguarded set-screw. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim that the machinery was negligently started while Albert was working is unsupported by evidence; unanimous testimony indicated the machinery was already running. The plaintiff's attempts to counter this with evidence of a supervisor's distress or a witness's prior inconsistent statement amount to mere conjecture and are incompetent to prove the machinery was started negligently.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that an employer's duty to provide a safe workplace is not absolute and is subject to limitations based on the employee's own conduct. It clarifies that this duty is negated when an employee's own actions, such as removing a provided safety device, are the direct cause of the hazardous condition. The ruling also underscores the high bar for evidence in negligence cases, distinguishing between substantive proof and inadmissible speculation or impeachment testimony. Future cases involving workplace injuries will look to this decision to analyze the extent of an employee's responsibility for their own safety, particularly when they modify employer-provided equipment.
