Boyd v. Blumenthal

• Decision Date: 11 June 1902
• Citation: 19 Del. 564,52 A. 330
• Parties: JOSEPH C. BOYD v. FERDINAND BLUMENTHAL and JULIEN STEVENS ULLMAN, trading as F. BLUMENTHAL & CO
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

52 A. 330

19 Del. 564

JOSEPH C. BOYD v. FERDINAND BLUMENTHAL and JULIEN STEVENS ULLMAN, trading as F. BLUMENTHAL & CO

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

June 11, 1902

Superior Court, New Castle County, May Term, 1902.

SUMMONS CASE (No. 49, Nov. Term, 1900).

Verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,000.

Robert H. Richards and Walter H. Hayes for plaintiff.

William S. Hilles for defendant.

LORE C. J., and GRUBB and PENNEWILL J. J., sitting.

OPINION

PENNEWILL, J., charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury:--This action is brought by the plaintiff, Joseph C. Boyd, against the defendants, Ferdinand Blumenthal and Julien Stevens Ullman, trading as F. Blumenthal & Co., for the recovery of damages for personal injuries which he claims to have sustained because of the negligence of the defendants.

The plaintiff contends that on May 16, 1900, he was working for the defendants at their morocco factory in this city; that in the due course of his employment he was taking trucks in the elevator from a lower to a higher floor, when, on account of the defective unsafe and dangerous condition of said elevator, his left hand was, crushed, bruised and permanently injured by being caught between the handles of one of the trucks and a joist or piece of wood which was exposed, uncovered and projecting upon one of the walls or sides of the shaft of the elevator. He further contends that such defective, unsafe and dangerous condition of the elevator resulted from the negligence of the defendants.

The defendants deny that there was any negligence whatever on their part which caused the injury complained of. They insist that the elevator was in a reasonably safe condition; and that the negligence, if any there was that caused the injury, was the negligence of the plaintiff himself.

In order that the plaintiff may recover in this action it is necessary for him to satisfy you that the injury happened in the manner alleged by him; that it was caused by the negligence of the defendants, and without any contributory negligence on his part.

The material and important question for your determination from the testimony, is whether the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the defendants' negligence; because, if it was not so caused, the plaintiff cannot recover.

Negligence may be said to be the want or absence of ordinary care; that is, of such care as a reasonably prudent and cautious man would exercise under similar circumstances.

For your guidance, gentlemen, we will state the rules or principles of law which we conceive to be applicable to this case. They have heretofore been laid down by this Court in other cases, and may be regarded as well settled in this State.

It is conceded that the defendants were, at the time of the accident, operating the factory of which the elevator in question formed a part; and also that the relation of master and servant existed between the plaintiff and defendants at the time of the accident. It becomes our duty, therefore, to instruct you as to certain rights, duties and obligations growing out of that relation.

It is the duty of the master to provide for the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to work, and also to keep them in a reasonably safe condition. The care required in this regard is in all cases in proportion to the dangerous character of the employment. The place, tools, machinery and appliances need not be of the best, nor of the latest pattern, nor of the most improved kind; but must be reasonably safe and adapted to the purpose for which they are to be used. If the master fails to perform such duty and injury results from...