American Box & Lumber Co. v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 10 September 1931 |
| Citation | 102 Fla. 907,138 So. 29 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | AMERICAN BOX & LUMBER CO. v. CHANDLER. |
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
Action by Warren F. Chandler against the American Box & Lumber Company. To review an adverse judgment, defendant brings error.
Reversed.
COUNSEL Marks, Marks & Holt, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Evan Evans, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.
Warren F. Chandler, a carpenter, was at work on the construction of a two-story wooden building being erected for the American Box & Lumber Company in Jacksonville on April 15, 1927. Chandler was at work on a scaffold erected on the west side of the building when one of the ledger boards of the scaffold broke, causing the floor boards of the scaffold to give way and Chandler fell to the ground, sustaining some injuries.
At the time, four men were on the scaffold: Mr. Eddy, Mr. McDowell Mr. McNamara, and the plaintiff, Mr. Chandler. They were standing very near to each other, two on one side of the ledger board that broke and two upon the other side. The scaffold was built by McDowell and McNamara the day before from the supply of material on the ground usually used for such purposes. There was a sufficient supply of suitable material for that purpose. Mr. Drygas was foreman or general superintendent of the job. Mr. McDowell was job superintendent under Mr. Drygas, who was on the job when the accident occurred.
The scaffold consisted of four upright pieces of 2×4 about eighteen feet long fastened in the usual way to the house with ledger boards about seven-eighths by six, and cross braced with boards of the same size. On the ledger boards pieces of 2×8 or 2×10 were laid for floor boards. There was no evidence that there was any insecure nailing of boards.
There is a controversy about the ledger board that broke causing the accident, whether it was defective or not. It is claimed that the defect in the particular ledger board consisted in the material which it is claimed was a piece of No. 2 short-grained pine with a knothole in it at a point about halfway between the house, to which one end was nailed, and the 2×4 upright at which the other end was nailed. The uprights stood about four or five feet from the house, and were about ten or twelve feet apart.
The evidence as to what happened to the scaffold when the ledger board broke is not clear. Mr. Chandler fell to the ground. The other three on the scaffold with him at the time seem not to have fallen, although they were standing near to each other. Nor is there any evidence as to which ledger board broke. McDowell said that he and Chandler were standing about the middle part of the scaffold, while McNamara and Eddy were at one end. McDowell saw Chandler 'fall to the ground from the scaffold,' and at another place in his testimony he said: 'There were four of us on it when it fell.' Chandler said he 'fell with it.' Mr. Eddy said he was on the scaffold 'when it fell.' Drygas said he was superintendent when Chandler 'was hurt with a falling scaffold.' Whether the entire structure fell, or only a part of it, whether the floor boards only dropped at that particular ledger board support, and Chandler lost his balance and fell, or whether the entire structure collapsed precipitating all four workmen who were upon it to the ground, is not made clear by the evidence.
Within a month after the accident, Chandler brought his action in the circuit court for Duval county against the American Box & Lumber Company for damages for personal injuries. The declaration alleges that a scaffold 'which was then and there furnished and provided by defendant for the said use of the plaintiff' 'gave way and fell.' The principle invoked as a basis for recovery is that a reasonably safe place must be provided by an employer at which his employees are required to work. The breach alleged was that the scaffold 'furnished and provided by defendant as aforesaid, was defective, insufficient, weak and unfit for use' by reason whereof the scaffold 'collapsed and fell as aforesaid.'
The defendant sought by motion to require the plaintiff to amend his declaration by alleging with 'particularity and in detail wherein the scaffold mentioned was defective, insufficient, weak and unfit for use.' The motion was denied, and that order constitutes the ground for the first assignment of error by the defendant against whom a verdict was rendered for $11,000 damages and judgment entered for $7,500, and who seeks a reversal on writ of error. A remittitur of $3,500 was suggested by the trial court and acted upon by the plaintiff. The defendant also interposed a demurrer to the declaration. The demurrer was overruled, and that order constitutes the basis of the second assignment of error. The grounds of the demurrer were that the declaration states no cause of action, is vague, indefinite, uncertain in its terms, is argumentative, and consists of allegations of mere legal conclusions. Also that there is no sufficient allegation of a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff, nor does it contain any sufficient allegations of actionable negligence on the defendant's part.
The orders upon the motion and demurrer were erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant's rights. In considering this question, the point is at once presented whether it is the duty of an employer who engages carpenters to erect a building to provide his workmen with scaffolds or temporary places to work as a completed and reasonably safe and sufficient footing upon which to stand and sufficient in strength to sustain all materials that might be placed upon it by the workmen and all workmen who may climb upon and stand upon it, or merely to supply suitable material with which the workmen themselves may construct the scaffold, using their judgment as to the quantity and sufficiency of the materials to be used and the efficiency of the workmanship in constructing the temporary structure.
If the alternative is the legal principle applicable, the declaration as drafted is clearly insufficient in not alleging that the materials for the building of the scaffold were unsuitable for such a structure; the negligence consisting in failing to supply such material. An action for damages for personal injuries rests upon the proposition that the defendant owed the plaintiff some legal duty express or implied which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Hollywood v. Bair
... ... 844; Williams v. City of ... Jacksonville, 118 Fla. 671, 160 So. 15, 98 A.L.R. 513; ... American Box & Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 102 Fla. 907, ... 138 So. 29; Id., 122 Fla. 169, 165 So. 382; City ... ...
-
Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp.
...to liability, bacause there can be no actionable negligence in the absence of a duty which has been violated. (American Box & Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 102 Fla. 907, 138 So. 29; Raphael v. Koretzky, 102 So.2d 746, 747 (Fla.App.).) The question of whether or not a duty was properly performed i......
-
Kuptz v. Ralph Sollitt & Sons Const. Co.
...Mackie, 178 Mass. 1, 59 N.E. 673; Southern Indiana R. Co. v. Harrell, 161 Ind. 689, 68 N.E. 262, 266, 63 L.R.A. 460; American Box Co. v. Chandler, 102 Fla. 907, 138 So. 29; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hoffman, 57 Ind.App. 431, 107 N.E. 315; 39 C.J. 545, 855. Note 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 3......
-
Hill v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
...1964), affirmed the dismissal of a gratuitous undertaking case for want of allegations of reliance. See also American Box & Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 102 Fla. 907, 138 So. 29 (1931). 8 In Modlin the inspector was a government officer and liability was asserted against the city. The decisions ......