Maryland case law › Piper v. Cambria Iron Co.

Piper v. Cambria Iron Co.

78 Md. 249 (1893) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedFowler✓ Good law
HoldingThe plaintiff, an employee of the defendant Cambria Iron Company, was injured while unloading and loading iron in the defendant's mill yard.

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the appellee, the Cambria Iron Company, which is a Pennsjdvania corporation, doing business in the City of Cumberland, in this State. The Court instructed the jury that the plaintiff had offered no evidence legally sufficient to sustain his case, and directed a verdict for the defendant corporation. The propriety of this ruling is the only question involved, but it will be necessary to examine all the plaintiff’s testimony in order to determine it.

The plaintiff was an employe of the defendant, and while engaged at work in the yard of its mill in Cumberland, on the 18th November, 1892, he, with three other men, was ordered (by whom it does not appear) to go into the mill for the purpose of unloading a car, to weigh the iron with which the car was laden upon the platform beside the car, and then to put it into another car, also standing near said platform in the mill, a short distance away. It appears that the floor of the car to be loaded was above the level of the platform, and was provided with a fall or foot-board for the men to walk upon to and from the car. But the floor of the car which was to be unloaded was on a level with the platform, and the space between the platform and 251 this car was sixteen inches wide and four feet deep. There was no foot-board over this last named space of sixteen inches — the only foot-board owned by the defendant being placed at the other car which was to be loaded with the iron after it was weighed by the appellant and his fellow-workmen.

It was about four o’clock in the afternoon of a very dark day, and on the inside of the mill it was so dark that no one could see whether there was a foot-board in position at the car or not, without stooping down to examine the place where it was supposed to be. The plaintiff, ^supposing there was a foot-board there, without making any examination, and assuming the place to be safe, stepped into the car without injury, and while returning with an armful of iron, without looking, he stepped into the open space of sixteen inches and was injured. It was also in evidence that a foot-board is a usual and necessary appliance for loading and

This is a preview of Piper v. Cambria Iron Co.. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.