Negligence. Evidence. An experienced teamster who is sent to a mill to receive a load of bags of meal delivered through a chute, and adopts the method in use there of making a bridge connecting his wagon with the mouth of the chute by placing two planks with one end resting on his wagon and the other end on a sill of the building three inches wide, cannot recover from the proprietor of the mill for injuries caused by one of the planks slipping off the sill when he is standing upon it, and it does not help him if there was ice on the sill when he put the end of the plank there.
In an action by a teamster against the proprietor of a mill, to which he had been sent to receive a load of bags of meal, for injuries from the slipping of one of two planks on which the plaintiff was standing, which were used as a bridge connecting the plaintiff's wagon with the mouth of the chute, one end of the planks resting on a sill of the building, the presiding judge in his discretion properly may exclude evidence that at some time previous to the accident the planks had moved off and that on the day before the accident the sill was covered with dust from the meal or corn.
HAMMOND, J.
The evidence tended to show that the accident was caused by the displacement of one end of one of two planks upon which the plaintiff was standing. Each plank was supported at one end by a sill three inches wide formed by a plank spiked to the side of the mill, and at the other end by the plaintiff's wagon. The planks lay on the wagon "on a perfectly flat surface," being "level from the building to the wagon," and "they did not slant or tip in any way." They were put in place and adjusted by the plaintiff. He was an experienced teamster, and although he testified that he had never before used such a contrivance in loading from a building he must be held nevertheless to have fully understood the perils incident to this method of loading and unloading a wagon. He accepted and used the planks with a full knowledge of their nature. By him they were adjusted, and he must be held to have known that upon him rested the duty of keeping them in place. It is argued by the plaintiff that there was ice upon the sill. But, even if that was so, it does not change the responsibility of the plaintiff.
The evidence that at some time previous to the accident the planks had moved off, as also the evidence that on the day before the accident the sill was covered with dust from the meal or corn, was properly rejected within the discretion of the court.
Exceptions overruled.