Skip to main content

Winniford v. MacLeod

Unknown CourtNovember 11, 1913Cited 10 times
Plaintiff WinMacLeod
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bean, Burnett, Eakin, McNary
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, a 17-year-old factory worker injured when his hand was caught in unguarded cog-wheels of a chocolate-manufacturing machine while following his foreman's order to clean spots near the cogs.

Excerpt

From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is an action by D. R. B. Winniford and R. H. Mays, doing business under tbe firm name and style of Winniford & Mays, against A. L. MacLeod and tbe Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company, a corporation, and owner of what is known as Westover Terrace, in Portland, Oregon. Tbe complaint recites an ordinance of tbe City of Portland forbidding tbe explosion of gunpowder or other like material in tbe city limits without first having received a permit from tbe city engineer. It says also that prior to tbe explosion complained of MacLeod bad obtained from tbe proper officer a permit to use powder for blasting in an amount not to exceed five pounds upon tbe tract mentioned. At tbe time of tbe grievance complained of tbe plaintiffs were engaged in tbe erection of a dwelling-house for another near the scene of the blasting operations they describe, .but had not yet completed their contract. The complaint contains these allegations: 303 “That for more than a year prior to October 29, 1911, the defendant A. L. MacLeod had been carrying on blasting operations in a careless, negligent, malicious and wanton manner for the defendant Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company upon the land owned by the defendant company, and the defendant company well knew and appreciated that the defendant A. L. MacLeod was carrying on these blasting operations in a careless, negligent, malicious and wanton manner, and in such a manner as to endanger the property in the surrounding neighborhood; that on October 29, 1911, at about the hour of 3:30 P. M., the defendants, A. L. MacLeod and Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company, negligently, carelessly, maliciously and wantonly, through their servants, set off and exploded at one time 50 pounds of powder at a point about 150 feet west of the said house hereinabove described; that the said explosion threw a great number of rocks at terrific speed against and into the s

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** D.R.B. Winniford and R.H. Mays, who operated a business partnership called Winniford & Mays, had a legal dispute with A.L. MacLeod and the Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company. The case involved work being done at a property called Westover Terrace in Portland, Oregon. The dispute appears to have centered around wrongful termination, though the specific details of how the employment relationship ended are not fully clear from the available court records. **What the Court Decided:** The court ruled in favor of Winniford and Mays, finding that they had been wrongfully terminated. The judge sided with the workers' claims against both MacLeod and the Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company. However, no monetary damages were awarded in this case, suggesting the victory may have been more about establishing rights or correcting the wrongful action. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This 1913 case demonstrates that even over a century ago, courts recognized that workers had legal protections against wrongful termination. It shows that employees could successfully challenge unfair firing practices, even when facing both individual employers and corporations. While employment laws have evolved significantly since then, this case represents an early recognition that workers have rights when they believe they've been illegally dismissed from their jobs.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.