HELEN MOZEY v. WALTER ERICKSON

Minnesota Supreme Court1931-01-30No. No. 28,110

182 Minn. 419

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that a stepladder is a simple appliance subject to the simple tool doctrine, and therefore an employer bears no duty to inspect it or warn of obvious defects.

Helen Mozey worked for Walter Erickson doing cleaning work and used a stepladder without proper bracing or support between its legs. When the ladder collapsed on the third step, she suffered a broken leg and serious injuries. Mozey argued the defendant was negligent for providing a defective ladder, but the defendant produced evidence of the ladder at trial.

The jury believed Mozey's account that the ladder lacked standard safety features like braces to prevent the legs from spreading apart or sliding. However, the court determined that a stepladder qualifies as a simple appliance and therefore falls under the "simple tool doctrine," which limits an employer's duty to inspect such items. Because the ladder's defects were obvious to any person of ordinary intelligence—particularly someone using it for work—and the employer owed no duty to warn of obvious dangers, no actionable negligence could be established.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an employer owes a duty to inspect a stepladder provided to an employee
Whether a stepladder constitutes a simple appliance under the simple tool doctrine
Whether an employer must warn employees of obvious dangers in common tools
Scope of employer liability for defective but obviously defective equipment

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed from an order granting the defendant judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment non obstante) following a jury trial.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Wilson, C. J.

Plaintiff appealed from an order granting defendant judgment non obstante pursuant to the usual alternative motion.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant to do cleaning work in a house into which he was about to move. On Monday, and Tuesday she used a stepladder on which was a little platform to hold a pail of water and from which ladder she cleaned walls. Wednesday morning when she came • to work the stepladder had been taken away and another one without such platform was furnished for her use. She took the stepladder from where it was leaning against a wall, moved it to where she wished to use it, placed it as she saw fit, and with a pail of water, rags, etc. shé proceeded to climb the ladder. At the third step the ladder collapsed, and she received a broken leg and was seriously injured.

Defendant put in evidence a stepladder which whs identified by several witnesses as the one plaintiff was using when injured. Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that if the stepladder so produced was the one used there was no liability. Plaintiff denied that this was the stepladder. The jury accepted plaintiff’s version, so we must deal with the situation as plaintiff detailed it.

The stepladder had no brace or contact between the two legs of the ladder to keep them from coming together nor to keep them from spreading apart. The record is indefinite as to whether the stepladder had the usual equipment to keep the two legs from unduly sliding forward. The fall was occasioned by the spreading apart of the two legs on the supporting side of the ladder. The stepladder had two swinging free legs. This case does not involve latent defects. The absence of the usual braces and supports was obvious. No actionable negligence may be predicated upon a master’s failure to warn a servant of risks or dangers obvious to a person of ordinary intelligence. Hetager v. Moran, 168 Minn. 491, 210 N. W. 390, 864.

A stepladder is one of the most simple appliances in general use. Its use is necessarily attended with some danger. The necessity of the two legs’ being firmly braced is a matter of common knowledge, and it would seem particularly within the knowledge of persons engaged in work involving the use of such contrivance.

A stepladder is not a complicated instrumentality. It was styled a simple appliance in Anderson v. Fred Johnson Co. 116 Minn. 56, 133 N. W. 85. In Dessecker v. Phoenix Mills Co. 98 Minn. 439, 108 N. W. 516, an ordinary 12-foot ladder ivas termed a simple appliance. If a stepladder is a simple appliance, it comes within the simple tool doctrine and the employer owes no duty to inspect the same. Fischer v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 154 Minn. 78, 191 N. W. 262; Mollock v. Gr. N. Ry. Co. 162 Minn. 90, 202 N. W. 49; Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312, 108 N. W. 514, 116 A. S. R. 373; Dessecker v. Phoenix Mills Co. 98 Minn. 439, 108 N. W. 516.

While some courts claim a stepladder as a part of the plant and others a place to work, we are of the opinion that because of the foregoing and following authorities we should hold as we do that a stepladder is a simple appliance and comes within the simple tool doctrine. 8 Minn. L. Rev. 625; 1 Bailey, Personal Injuries (2 ed.) § 161, p. 356; Sheridan v. Gorham Mfg. Co. 28 R. I. 256, 66 A. 576, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 687, and note; Sivley v. Nixon M. D. Co. 128 Tenn. 675, 164 S. W. 772, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 337, and note. It follows that defendant’s negligence has not been established.

Affirmed.