Haley v. Jump River Lumber Co.
81 Wis. 412, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 29, 51 N.W. 321 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When evidence supports the theory that an employee's injury was caused solely by the negligence of an independent contractor, the defendant employer is entitled to have the jury decide that factual question. Additionally, an employee assumes the risk of a workplace danger if, in the exercise of ordinary care, they ought to have observed and comprehended the danger, regardless of whether they had actual knowledge.
Facts:
- The defendant operated a private logging railroad using cars designed to carry logs on frames called 'bunks'.
- The defendant had a contract with a man named Folds to cut, haul, and load the logs onto the train cars.
- For about ten days prior to the accident, a large log was left lying in a ditch parallel and in close proximity to the railroad track.
- On October 31, 1889, the plaintiff, a brakeman, was working on a moving train loaded with logs.
- A wrapping chain on one of the cars broke, causing logs to fall from multiple cars.
- The plaintiff was caught between two car-loads of logs and sustained serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant railroad company in the state circuit court (trial court) for negligence.
- The defendant filed an affidavit of prejudice against the presiding judge, who then called in another circuit judge to try the case.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a special verdict finding the defendant negligent in several respects.
- A judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff based on the jury's verdict.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to submit a special verdict question to the jury on whether the accident was caused solely by the negligence of an independent contractor, and by failing to instruct the jury that an employee assumes the risk of dangers they should have known about through ordinary care?
Opinions:
Majority - Winslow, J.
Yes. A trial court commits a reversible error by refusing to allow the jury to decide an issuable fact supported by evidence, such as whether an independent contractor's negligence was the sole cause of an accident. The evidence presented a plausible theory that the accident resulted solely from negligent loading by Folds, an independent contractor. Under the law, if the contractor's negligence was the sole cause, the defendant would not be liable. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to have the jury consider this question. The court also erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of assumption of risk based on constructive knowledge. The correct principle is that an employee assumes the risk if, through ordinary care, they 'ought to have observed' the danger, not just if they had actual knowledge.
Majority - Lyon, C. J. (on motion for rehearing)
Yes. The original judgment of reversal is affirmed. The trial court's refusal to submit the question of negligent loading to the jury effectively removed that issue from their consideration. Had the jury been allowed to consider it, they might have found that the negligent loading was the proximate cause of the injury, and the log in the ditch was merely a remote cause. Furthermore, the proposed jury instruction on assumption of risk was correct in stating that liability depends on whether the plaintiff knew 'or might by the use of reasonable or ordinary care have been known to him.' By rejecting this, the trial court improperly limited the inquiry to the plaintiff's actual knowledge, which was a clear error.
Analysis:
This case solidifies two key principles in tort and employment law. First, it affirms a defendant's procedural right to have a jury consider any material defense theory supported by the evidence, specifically the complete defense that an injury was caused solely by an independent contractor. Second, it clarifies the standard for the assumption of risk defense, establishing that an employee's knowledge of a danger is judged by an objective 'reasonably should have known' standard, not merely a subjective 'actually knew' standard. This prevents employees from avoiding the defense by claiming ignorance of obvious hazards and places a duty of ordinary observation upon them.
