Arkerson v. Dennison

Decision Date27 March 1875
Citation117 Mass. 407
PartiesFrancis Arkerson v. George W. Dennison
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Middlesex. Tort for personal injuries caused by the fall of a staging upon which the plaintiff was at work in the employment of the defendant. Trial in this court, before Ames, J., who, after verdict, reported the case for the consideration of the full court, in substance as follows:

The plaintiff testified: "In July, 1873, I was employed by the defendant, as a bricklayer, to work by the day on a building in Cambridgeport. He set me to work on the third story on the west side, filling up the inside brickwork, and directed me, when I had finished that side, to go over to the east side to do the same work there, on a staging already built. Having finished on the west side, I, in accordance with these directions, went on July 22 to the east side through a third story window, upon the staging there erected, and went to work laying bricks. Went out this way because the ladder from the outside had not yet been put up. The defendant was there on the ground about the building, giving directions generally about the work. Soon after a ladder was put up, and I called for mortar. The hod-carrier brought some up, and emptied it into the tub. He then turned to go down, when there was a crash, and the scaffold broke and fell, and Bennett, who was at work with me, the hod-carrier and I were thrown to the ground. I was stunned and very badly hurt, my leg being broken. I had no part in building this staging, which was built before I began to work for the defendant. I did not examine it at all before going on it, as I supposed that it was safe, and could not have examined it unless I had taken up the boards. It was about thirty-two feet high. I saw nothing to show that it was unsafe. When it fell, there was not over the weight of ten bricks upon it, and part of two tubs of mortar, besides Bennett, the hod-carrier and myself. The ledger board, which is a board nailed to the outer posts, and running parallel with the building, used as a support for the cross-boards, on which the planks rest, had broken in two. This ledger was cross-grained, and had split with the grain. It was much too small and thin for such a place. The staging was about twenty-one feet long." Cross-examined: "After I fell, looked up and saw ledger broken. The hod-carrier brought but a small hod full, and put it down easy. A man standing on the ground and looking up could not tell, on account of the distance, whether it was safe or not. A mason generally takes it for granted that the staging is safe, and if he tried to examine, he would be apt to be discharged by his employer."

George Dudley, a carpenter, testified for the plaintiff: "I saw Arkerson after the fall; helped put him into the wagon. I looked up at the staging, and saw the ledger broken in two. The ledger was nailed on the outside of the posts, and when this gave way it let the whole staging down. It was built of spruce or hemlock, six or eight inches wide; split ragged across; should not consider the scaffold safe to go on it myself." Cross-examined: "I think a nail gave way. If the hod-carrier had thrown the mortar down violently, it might have started the nails. I only examined it from the ground."

Albert Rollins, a mason and bricklayer, testified for the plaintiff: "I have built stagings; saw posts standing and ledger broken. It was cross-grained. Split aslant, one and a half to two feet from the middle. I should not think the ledger was a proper one to be put up. A staging ought to be able to hold from one to three tons, and ought to hold even if the hod-carrier dumped the mortar down violently. The lumber here was spruce or hemlock. This kind of lumber, exposed to the weather, readily splits with the grain. It was not a safe staging." Cross-examined: "Any one coming up the ladder could see that it was unsafe, but not if they came from the third floor window."

Patrick Mehan, for the defendant, testified as follows: "I am a bricklayer, and always assisted in building stagings. Employed by the defendant as a bricklayer. Helped construct this staging about two weeks before it fell. Two of us worked on it, and brought materials up from the ground. Materials as good as the average, perhaps better. Nails were good. There was sufficient material for the ledger. While we were raising the staging, a heavy shower came up. One of the ledgers was not nailed as well as we intended, and we did not go back to nail it. Worked on the staging, don't know how long before the fall. Bennett was with me. Did n't tell the defendant of insecurity of ledger. We fixed the ledgers according to our own judgment. Have been accustomed to build stagings according to my own judgment." Cross-examined: "I worked by the day, while building the staging. The defendant was there almost every, if not every day. There was no regular boss. Presume the defendant superintended the work. I did n't, though I was paid more than others. The defendant told us what lumber to use. Ledger was spruce. Saw it after it was broken, split off. It was not cross-grained. It split off with the grain. We did n't nail the middle boards, intending to return. Afterwards went on the staging, and took out window-caps, without having finished it. I did not examine it to see if it was safe. I had forgotten that I had left it unsafe. Intended to make it safe by driving in more nails. Can't say how many nails we used. No weight came on the ledger. They were put on simply to keep the poles steady."

Wilder Bennett, for the defendant, testified: "Have been bricklayer for fifty years. Have built a great many stagings helped build this about three weeks before the accident. Interrupted in the building by a storm. I thought staging was finished. Mehan did the nailing, while I brought up boards. After the staging was built, I worked on the caps. Mehan and two or three others helped me. Stood on the staging while doing it. Arkerson, the morning of the fall, nailed the board from a pole to the window-frame, to keep it steady. Staging looked sound. Nothing said about the staging, and I saw no trouble with it. We put on extra plank. Chambers did some nailing. He took the nails and hammer, and said he nailed it. Saw hod-carrier come up and step on the stage. Heard him dump the mortar; he did it pretty quick." Cross-examined: "In this work the defendant gave me directions, though he gave me none the morning of the fall. Fixed the staging when I went on the east side. Shifted the ladder. Don't know whether the ladder was fixed this morning. Handed nail to Chambers half an hour before the accident, to fix the staging. When I left the staging three weeks before, I thought it was finished. No agreement between Mehan and me as to who should go back and nail it. No weight on the ledger; it was all on the cross-pieces. It was not cross-grained, but was fine spruce board, capable of holding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • Bowen v. Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 7 de maio de 1888
    ...of some one representing him in that respect, he is liable for injuries sustained by the servant. See authorities just cited; Arkerson v. Dennison, 117 Mass. 407. Now this case it was no part of the duty of the plaintiff to build or keep the bridge in repair. Neither he nor his foreman had ......
  • Lang v. Bailes
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 12 de março de 1910
    ...v. Gilchrist, 45 N.W. 82; Kan. Cy. Car & F. Co. v. Sawyer, 53 P. 90; Sims v. Am. Steel Barge Co., 56 Minn. 68, 57 N.W. 322; Arkerson v. Dennison, 117 Mass. 407. Where servant is performing a duty personal to the master and non-delegable, the master is responsible for his negligence. Lindael......
  • Williams v. Ransom
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 de março de 1911
    ...Tower v. Reber, 11 Mo.App. 203; Huth v. Doyle, 76 Mo.App. 671; Chambers v. Company, 129 F. 561; Conners v. Company, 29 F. 629; Ackerson v. Denison, 117 Mass. 407; Rabson v. Leighton, 187 Mass. 432; Meyer v. Company, 187 Mass. 586. (4) Under the statute there is a fixed rule by which to dete......
  • Combs v. Rountree Construction Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 1 de julho de 1907
    ... ... representing him in that respect, he is liable for injuries ... sustained by the servant. [See authorities just cited; ... Arkerson v. Dennison, 117 Mass. 407.] Now in this ... case it was no part of the duty of the plaintiff to build or ... keep the bridge in repair. Neither ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT