Broomfield v. Wurster Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Parties: BROOMFIELD v. WURSTER CONST. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

94 S.W. 304

118 Mo. App. 254

BROOMFIELD v. WURSTER CONST. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 24, 1906.

1. MASTER AND SERVANT—INJURIES TO SERVANT—SAFE PLACE TO WORK.

Where a master directed the work of taking down a building and ordered the workmen to leave an occasional joist for the purpose of supporting the building, it was the duty of the master to exercise ordinary care to provide such reasonable precautions as were compatible with the nature and character of the work to insure a reasonable degree of safety.

2. SAME—CARE REQUIRED OF SERVANT.

Under such circumstances, a servant had the right to rely on the superior judgment of the master that the joists were sufficient to render the building secure, unless, by the exercise of ordinary care on his part, he could have discerned the danger.

3. SAME—QUESTION FOR JURY.

In an action for injuries to a servant, owing to the falling of a building which was being taken down, held, that the question whether the master performed his duty in exercising ordinary care to support the building was for the jury.

4. SAME.

In an action for injuries to a servant, owing to the falling of a building which was being taken down, held, that the question whether plaintiff exercised ordinary care in working about the building was for the jury.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by William Broomfield against the Wurster Construction Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The Inside Inn was a two-story frame hotel building of temporary character, located upon the ground of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company of 1904, constructed and maintained for the purpose of accommodating World's Fair visitors. At the close of the exposition, defendant, a contractor, undertook to dismantle and remove the same. Plaintiff was a laborer in its employ, removing joists therefrom, at the time of his injury. As said, the building was a frame structure, two stories in height, of nine feet each. Its length was something over 100 feet, and its width about 26 feet. At the time of the injury, plaintiff, with other laborers, was engaged in the defendant's service, under the direction of its foreman, in removing the floor joists of the second story. The ceiling joists above the same story and the floors of the second story had been removed, and the work of removing the joists of the second story was then in progress. On the morning of the day of the injury, the foreman in charge had directed the plaintiff and others to commence the work of removing the joists at the north end of the building and work south, leaving one joist intact every 20 feet as a bracing or support, and, in accordance with these instructions, the plaintiff and others labored until they had removed the same, except one every 20 feet, and thus the joists were removed from the ceiling of the second story and for a distance of about 90 feet of the ceiling of the first or floor of the second story, when the plaintiff was warned by the foreman not to take out any more joists as the building was falling, or about to fall. Simultaneously therewith plaintiff observed the walls swaying and ran across the joists still remaining, in haste, seeking to find a place of safety, and, endeavoring to pass below, between two of the joists, was caught in some manner and thereby precipitated to the floor or ground beneath, whereby he was injured. The walls of the building, about this time, lodged in a tree and were prevented from further falling. The negligence alleged and relied upon for a recovery is that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to provide the plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to perform his labors, in that it failed to properly brace or support the walls so as to prevent their falling while the work of removing the joists was in progress; and, second, that it failed to warn the plaintiff that the walls were likely to fall in time to have enabled him to seek a place of safety. On a trial in the circuit court, the verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The only error assigned is that the trial court erred in refusing defendan...