Amorosso v. Farina Bros. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1959 |
| Citation | 161 N.E.2d 761,339 Mass. 595 |
| Parties | Carmella A. AMOROSSO, Administratrix, v. FARINA BROTHERS COMPANY, Inc. Bartolomeo J. SIMONE v. FARINA BROTHERS COMPANY, Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stanley B. Milton, Worcester, for plaintiffs.
Edward F. Hennessey, Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, COUNIHAN, WHITTEMORE, and CUTTER, JJ.
The plaintiffs seek recovery for the conscious suffering and death of one employee and injury to another employee of Colonial Marble Company (Colonial), a subcontractor of the defendant. In opening, the plaintiffs stated that Colonial had engaged to supply and install terrazzo and marble floors in a building under construction at the Worcester State Hospital for which the defendant was the general contractor. The defendant had constructed on the outside of the building, and maintained and controlled, two temporary hoisting elevators which were used to bring materials from the ground to the several floors. One of the elevators was used by subcontractors. Colonial, after the execution of, and separately from, its subcontract, had agreed to pay the defendant an hourly charge for the use of the elevator. The accident was caused by the negligence of an employee of the defendant, when, on February 15, 1956, the two employees of Colonial, in the scope of their employment, were using the elevator to deliver terrazzo tiles at the eighth floor of the building. Both Colonial and the defendant were insured under the workmen's compensation act and neither employee had reserved common law rights under G.L. c. 152 § 24.
We assume without deciding that, as the plaintiffs in effect contend, the defendant in furnishing the elevator was acting, not as general contractor, but under a separate subcontract with Colonial. In this capacity, however, it was engaged in the common activity under the general contract. The moving of the tiles from the ground to the eighth floor was a necessary step in installation and was plainly an integral part of Colonial's work. McPadden v. W. J. Halloran Co., Mass., 154 N.E.2d 582. See Gauss v. H. N. Hartwell Co. Inc., Mass., 155 N.E.2d 415. On the facts stated there was therefore no issue for the jury.
The trial judge directed verdicts on the opening which was carefully made and appears intended as a complete statement of the cases. This action was within the judge's discretion. Mulvaney v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph E. Bennett Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...to support the * * * cause of action.' Douglas v. Whittaker, 324 Mass. 398, 399, 86 N.E.2d 916. See Amorosso v. Farina Bros. Co., Inc., 339 Mass. 595, 596, 161 N.E.2d 761; Singarella v. Boston, Mass., 173 N.E.2d 290. a Cf. Perry v. Carter, 332 Mass. 508, 509, 125 N.E.2d 780; Mallard v. Wald......
-
Bulpett v. Dodge Associates, Inc.
...Afienko, supra. See Gauss v. H. N. Hartwell Co., Inc., 338 Mass. 353, 354-355, 155 N.E.2d 415 (1959); Amorosso v. Farina Bros. Co., Inc., 339 Mass. 595, 596, 161 N.E.2d 761 (1959); Pettiti v. McHugh, 341 Mass. 566, 570-571, 171 N.E.2d 169 (1960). We are of the opinion that in this case Dodg......
-
Mallard v. Waldman
...332 Mass. 508, 509, 125 N.E.2d 780, 782. See also Douglas v. Whittaker, 324 Mass. 398, 399-401, 86 N.E.2d 916; Amorosso v. Farina Bros. Co. Inc., Mass., 161 N.E.2d 761. 2. The trustees, in support of their position that a directed verdict for them was required at the close of the testimony,......
-
Tindall v. Denholm & McKay Co.
...Mass. 189, 192, 154 N.E.2d 582. Gauss v. H. N. Hartwell Co., Inc., 338 Mass. 353, 354-355, 155 N.E.2d 415. Amorosso v. Farina Bros. Co., Inc., 339 Mass. 595, 596, 161 N.E.2d 761. The following facts, which are undisputed, are taken from the pre-trial order containing stipulations and admiss......