87 Wis. 166 | Wis. | 1894
It appears from the record that the furnace consists of two main parts or wings, connected at right angles; that one of the wings was a casting house, and the other a stove house; that there was a top house; that the top house consists of a circular building built above the roof of the casting house near its. connection with the stove house, and appears to be nearly over the upper part of the junction of the two wings on the roof of the buildings ; that it is connected by a covered way with the stock house and hoisting tower, which is a circular brick structure next to the top house, wherein all the ore, charcoal, lime, and other material used in the manufacture of iron and in smelting the ore were lifted to the roof of the building, and from thence wheeled through a covered way into the top house, and from there emptied into a pipe or shoot near the tunnel head or hopper leading down on the out
The facts above stated are, in effect, conceded. There is also evidence tending to prove that the platform where the plaintiff was doing the plastering was so small that it was difficult to hold the pail and do the plastering; that the place where he was obliged to set the pail was only from twelve to fourteen inches in diameter, with no railing around it; that the door down into the top house was so small that he had to back down into it without his pail; that, while he was so doing, the pail blew off; that the place where he fell through the roof was about four feet from the stairs; that before the accident he had seen men walking upon the roof many times; that he had, before the accident, at times shoveled snow off the roof and swept it off, and painted it, by the direction of the defendant; that ashes, coal, ore, and dirt would come up from the furnace, and accumulate upon the roof; that the defendant generally had it cleaned off every six months, sometimes every two or three months; that to allow it to remain tended to corrode, weaken, and destroy the sheet iron roofing; that at the time of the accident such accumulation of dirt, etc., at the place of the accident was six or eight inches deep; that it had last been cleaned off some ten months prior to the accident; that the same roof had been on for at least five years; that the defendant’s night foreman always warned men sent upon the roof that it was unsafe; that no one ever suggested to the plaintiff that he ought not to go upon the roof, nor that it was unsafe ; that the same was true as t© some of the defendant’s other employees; and that the plaintiff was unaware of such unsafe and defective condition of the roof at the time he went out upon it for his pail, as mentioned:
¥e are constrained to hold that the evidence is sufficient to take the questions of the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence to the jury. In other
Exception is taken because the court submitted to the jury the question whether the defendant was negligent in allowing the roof to become weak and out of repair and incapable of supporting the weight of a man. But it follows from what has been said that such exception must be overruled. The same is true in respect to the portion of the charge to the effect that it was the duty of the defendant to keep the roof reasonably safe, or warn its employees of the danger. ,
We cannot say that the damages, as fixed by the court, are excessive. We find no error in the record.
By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.