Peter Garrow v. Charles Miller
| Citation | 47 A. 1087,72 Vt. 284 |
| Parties | PETER GARROW v. CHARLES MILLER |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1900 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
May Term, 1900.
CASE. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury, Addison County, June Term, 1899, Taft, C. J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted.
The action was brought to recover for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in not providing for the plaintiff, his employee, a safe place in which to work.
It appeared that the plaintiff was seriously injured by the falling of a staging upon which, with others, he was at work in the employ of the defendant in the erection of a building in the Village of Bristol. The defendant had himself put up certain uprights which supported the staging, but it was not claimed there was any defect or insufficiency in the part of the staging so constructed by him.
It appeared that a part of the staging was defective, and that this part was constructed, in the absence of the defendant by and under the direction of one Sorrell, an experienced workman in the employ of the defendant upon the job of building. There was evidence tending to show that Sorrell acted as the foreman of the defendant in the absence of the latter, who was away about one-third of the time.
The plaintiff claimed that the staging was insufficient on account of a defect in one of the cross-pieces, and the lack of a suitable number of cross-pieces. One of the cross-pieces had in it, near the middle, two knots, one of which was plainly discernible on its upper side as it lay in its position in the staging, while the other could not readily be seen except by an examination of that side of the cross-piece which was its under side when it had been put into the staging. Each of the two knots extended across the stick used as a cross-piece, and being in close proximity, greatly impaired its strength. The evidence tended to show that this cross-piece which was in the center of the staging broke where the knots were and that the staging fell to the ground carrying the plaintiff with it.
The plaintiff claimed that the negligence arose in the performance of a duty for the careful discharge of which the defendant became responsible when he assumed the relation of master to the plaintiff, and that Sorrell was the defendant's viceprincipal charged with the master's duty to provide a safe place for the plaintiff to work in.
The defendant claimed that, if the plaintiff's injury was caused by anyone but himself, it was caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, and on this and other grounds moved for a verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case. This motion was denied upon the ground that the defendant might be liable for furnishing insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial