in all, the plaintiff has been damaged by the acts of the defendant aforesaid in the sum of $ Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for $ and plaintiff's costs of suit. [Verification.] A. B., Attorney for plaintiff. FORM No. 862-By servant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained from negligence of employer in requiring perform ance of labor with which the servant was not familiar. (In Crawford v. Bonners Ferry L. Co., 12 Idaho 678; 87 Pac. 998; 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1.) [Title of court and cause.] Plaintiff complains of the defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1-4. [After averments that the defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and doing a sawmill business in Kootenai County, state of Idaho, and that about one year prior to August 24, 1904, plaintiff entered the employ of defendant, as teamster, to haul and skid logs and timber in the forests owned and used by defendant in connection with its sawmill, and after describing apparatus, machinery, and dump-carts used for the purpose of disposing of refuse, the complaint proceeds:] day of 5. That on the 1904, and while plaintiff was ir the performance of his said duties in hauling and skidding logs and timbers in the forests of defendant, pursuant to said employment, the defendant directed and required plaintiff to suspend said work, and to haul [etc., here describing the work he was required to perform]; that thereupon plaintiff objected to performing said lastmentioned service, and informed defendant that he did not understand said work, or the manner of using dump-carts, whereupon defendant further directed and required plaintiff to perform said last-mentioned labor, and insisted that he do so, and plaintiff proceeded to haul laths as directed by defendant as aforesaid. 6. That it was then and there, and at all times, the duty of the defendant to furnish, keep, and maintain a safe, sufficient, and suitable place for plaintiff to work in, and to provide and maintain sufficient, suitable, and safe appliances with which to perform said labor, and to provide and maintain sufficient, suitable, and safe roads over which to haul said laths, but that, disregarding its duty in the and premises and in this respect, it had knowingly, carelessly, and negligently caused said car and box to be so constructed that they were too low to safely allow said dump-cart to pass under; * defendant at all of the times herein mentioned, knowingly, carelessly, and negligently kept and maintained them in such unsafe and dangerous condition, and knew of their dangerous and unsafe condition, and knew that it was unsafe and dangerous for plaintiff to haul said laths with said dump-cart, of all of which plaintiff had no knowledge; that said facts could not be known or determined by plaintiff from any inspection which plaintiff was permitted to make, or was able to make, before or at the time of performing said work in the performance of which he was injured; that the element of danger resulting, or that might result, from such conditions as aforesaid, was a latent and not an obvious danger. 7. That on the day last aforesaid, and while plaintiff was hauling said laths as directed and required by defendant as aforesaid, without any assistance, and while he was exercising due care and caution, without any fault of plaintiff, the hind end of said dumpcart struck against the timbers and ceiling of said box over said driveway thereunder, and caused the fore part of said dump-cart to be suddenly and with great force and violence raised and thrown up to and against said timbers, by reason of which plaintiff was caught and held between and against said dump-cart and timbers, whereby [here follows statement of injuries received and damages]. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant in the sum of $2,000 damages as aforesaid, and costs of suit, and for other and further relief. R. E. McFarland, [Verification.] FORM No. 863-Under employers' liability act. Attorney for plaintiff. (In Mitchell v. Colorado M. & E. Co., 12 Colo. App. 277; 55 Pac. 736.)1 [Title of court and cause.] [After introductory part:] 1. That the defendant is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Colorado, and owns and operates what are known as the New Lindell Mills, situated in the city of Fort Collins, county 1 The complaint in form No. 863, under the employers' liability act (Colo. Laws 1893, p. 129), was held to state a complete cause of action and right of recovery by the plaintiff, under the statute of 1877, which is not controlled or affected by the act of 1893 aforesaid. The action is based upon the plaintiff's interest in the life of Larimer, and state of Colorado, with its principal office situated in the city of Denver, and state of Colorado. 2. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was engaged in rebuilding said mills at Fort Collins, the said mills having been theretofore destroyed by fire; that at said time, and for a long time prior thereto, one Benjamen F. Hottel was the resident agent and manager of said mills for and on behalf of defendant company, vested with general power in the management of said mills, with the right to employ and discharge men, and direct and control their actions in and about the working of said mills, as well as the rebuilding of the same; that said latter work, and all work herein mentioned, was under the immediate supervision, direction, and control of said Hottel, as the resident agent, manager, and representative of defendant company. 3. That on the 7th day of August, 1896, one William M. Mitchell, who was then the unmarried son of plaintiff, was employed by defendant company, through its manager aforesaid, to assist in raising a smokestack at said mills. 4. That the said William M. Mitchell was at that time a few months over the age of twenty-two years, and had no knowledge or previous experience with the handling or raising of smokestacks, and was uninformed and unacquainted with the methods employed and machinery used in conducting such operations, and relied upon the knowledge, judgment, skill, and experience of said manager Hottel, which he believed said Hottel possessed. 5. That under the direction of said manager Hottel, so acting for and representing defendant company, a derrick was provided for lifting said smokestack into position, which derrick had not been constructed for that purpose, and could not lift any greater weight than 2,500 pounds, of which facts said Mitchell had no notice or knowledge. 6. That plaintiff is informed and believes, and so avers the fact to be, that the said smokestack weighed about 4,500 pounds; that on said last-mentioned date, under the direction of said manager as of the deceased, her direct dependence upon him, as his mother, for maintenance and support, and does not seek to recover damages sustained by the deceased employee. Under the act of 1877, no notice was required to be given the employer before such suit could be maintained. The court, therefore, held that it was error to sustain a demurrer to this complaint on the ground of a failure to allege such notice: Mitchell v. Colorado M. & E. Co., 12 Colo. App. 278, 55 Pac. 736. (The form as given herein eliminates several repetitions contained in the original complaint.) aforesaid, the said smokestack was connected with the lifting apparatus of said derrick, the block and tackle being then unskilfully, carelessly, and negligently caused to be attached to an eye-bolt in said derrick, so that the whole of the weight of said stack was placed upon a small bolt; that the said manager then and there caused the windlass to which the rope was attached for lifting the said stack to be negligently and carelessly placed directly under the stack between the engine-house and elevator-building, so that while said stack was being hoisted it was immediately over the heads of those employed upon the windlass, and that the said Mitchell, having no notice or knowledge that said derrick was being used in an unsafe manner, or that the said manager had not exercised reasonable prudence, skill, and judgment in providing and placing said machinery, continued to work at said lifting apparatus; that while so engaged at the windlass, turning the same, and without any fault or neglect on his part, the eye-bolt holding said apparatus to the stack broke, and the said stack fell, striking said Mitchell and causing his immediate death. 7. That the death of the said William M. Mitchell was caused by the negligence of the defendant company, and of its manager, as its principal representative as aforesaid, in providing unsafe and defective machinery aforesaid, and through the grossly negligent manner and method in which the same was manipulated and used as aforesaid. 8. That the said William M. Mitchell was in sound bodily health at the time of his death, and at the time thereof, and for a long time prior thereto, supported plaintiff from his earnings, who, being advanced in years and in poor bodily health, was dependent upon her said son for maintenance and support, and which said earnings at the time of his death averaged $600 per annum. 9. That the bonds of matrimony existing between plaintiff and her husband, Michael Mitchell, were absolutely dissolved, by decree of divorce duly given, made, and entered of record in the county court of Jefferson County, state of Colorado, on the 25th day of July, 1882; and in and by the terms of said decree, plaintiff was given the custody of the minor children, William Mitchell and Kate Mitchell, and charged with their support and maintenance, without any allowance. from said Michael Mitchell. 10. That by reason of the default and negligent conduct of defendant company, and of its manager, as principal and representative, in causing the death of said William M. Mitchell, the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $5,000. Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant company for the sum of $5,000, and for costs of suit. Frank J. Annis, Garbutt & Garbutt, Attorneys for plaintiff. FORM No. 864-By employer, for servant's negligence. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1. That on and prior to the time hereinafter mentioned the defendant was, at his request, for reward to him, employed by the plaintiff to [here state work which the defendant was to perform], and as his servant. 2. That on the day of 19 the defendant [here state as to work] in so careless and improper a manner that plaintiff was damaged in the following particulars, to wit: [Here specify], and thereby the plaintiff lost [here state], and incurred divers expenses, to wit, $ in [here state], to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 865-By employer, for repayment of money advanced for services. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 19 at in consideration of $ plaintiff. 2. That on the day of the plaintiff advanced to the defendant, at his request, on account of services to be thereafter rendered, in pursuance of said agreement, the sum of $ 3. That the defendant has wholly neglected and refused to render such services, although demanded by the plaintiff so to do. |
