C. F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, Inc.
| Citation | 127 Fla. 91,172 So. 694 |
| Parties | C. F. HAMBLEN, Inc. v. OWENS. |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1937 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Circuit Court, St. Johns County; Geo. Wm. Jackson, Judge.
Action by Lee C. Owens against C. F. Hamblen, Inc. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL E. N. Calhoun and Dunham & Meitin, all of St Augustine, for plaintiff in error.
MacWilliams & Upchurch, of St. Augustine, for defendant in error.
While engaged as a clerk in the hardware business of the plaintiff in error, defendant in error fell from a stepladder and received injuries from which he was forced to have his left leg amputated above the knee. He brought this action for personal injuries and recovered a judgment for $8,000 to which writ of error was prosecuted.
The first question we are urged to answer is whether or not the stepladder from which defendant in error fell was such a simple tool or appliance as to make him chargeable with knowledge of its defects, if any, equally with his master.
The common or simple tool doctrine is an exception to the rule requiring the master to inspect, repair, and keep in safe condition all tools and appliances furnished his servant to work with. The comparative knowledge of the master and the servant is the test of the master's liability for injury occasioned by the use of such tools and if they are simple in construction so that defects are apparent and may be discovered without special skill or knowledge and without intricate inspection, the servant is as well qualified as the master to detect defects and judge the danger of their use, and being in his possession his opportunity to inspect is better than the master's. 18 R.C.L. 563.
In most jurisdictions the servant assumes the risk of injury from defects in what are commonly known as simple tools and appliances if he has had experience in the use of them. The master is under no obligation to inspect simple tools placed in the hands of his servant, nor will he generally be held required to instruct the servant in the use of them.
In LaBatt on Master and Servant, Vol. 3, page 2476 et seq., many implements are classified in the category of simple tools but no one has attempted to set out an allinclusive definition of such an instrument. In most cases the facts of the particular case determine and classify them. A tool might be simple as to a given state of facts and quite different as to another state.
It does not follow in all cases that the master is absolved from liability for injury to his servant from the use of a simple tool, neither is the servant required to inspect the tools and appliances furnished him to seek out latent defects that would make their use hazardous. He is only required to look out for defects that are patent to ordinary observation, for all others he has a right to rely on his master to correct. Little Rock M. R. & T. R. Co. v. Leverett, 48 Ark, 333, 3 S.W. 50, 3 Am.St.Rep. 230.
Stepladders have been classified as simple tools or appliances, but this rule does not apply to all stepladders. The stepladder in question was eight feet high, according to the testimony, and the arms connecting the legs near the top were joined by a carriage bolt through a wood cylinder about four inches long. At the time of the accident, defendant in error was taking stock and climbed up on a ladder, resting his left foot on the step next to the top. The nut came off the carriage bolt that ran through the wood cylinder connecting the two arms and this caused the ladder to become unsteady and fall against the shelving. The right foot of defendant in error went down and his left foot passed over the step, holding him in that position until he could extricate himself. As a result, the left leg was strained and bruised, and an infection set in requiring that it be amputated.
A ladder similar to the one from which defendant in error fell but only seven feet long was introduced in evidence. It was one of a number used about the store, was not assigned to any one for particular use, was the general property and equipment of the store, was used by the clerks promiscuously, and was used for rent to the patrons of the store. No one used it continuously and was responsible for its upkeep. The nut fastening the carriage bolt through the wood cylinder that holds the arms together was welded on and this was apparently the rule with reference to the use of all the ladders in the store.
Under such a state of facts which were clearly in issue, we cannot say as against the finding of the jury and the trial court that the defect in the stepladder was patent and should have been observed by the plaintiff. The ladder being one of several used promiscuously about the store, the clerks were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biswell v. Duncan
...which actually and necessarily follow the injury. See Owen v. Dix, 210 Ark. 562, 196 S.W.2d 913, 915 (1946); C.F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 127 Fla. 91, 172 So. 694, 696 (1937); Jones v. City of Caldwell, 20 Idaho 5, 116 P. 110, 113 (1911); Becker v. D & E Distributing Co., 247 N.W.2d 727, 73......
-
City of Hollywood v. Bair
... ... On the above ... said date, O. W. [136 Fla. 103] Collins, Inc., a Florida ... corporation, defendant herein, was under contract with ... 649; Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla ... 554, 169 So. 400; Hamblen, Inc., v. Owens, 127 Fla ... 91, 172 So. 694; Kenan et al. as Receivers ... ...
-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...a preexisting physical condition is aggravated by the injury, or the injury activates a latent condition. See C.F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 127 Fla. 91, 172 So. 694 (Fla.1937). Instruction 501.5a is necessary where Instruction 401.12b, Concurring cause, is given. Hart v. Stern, 824 So.2d 927......
-
Myers v. Central Florida Investments, Inc.
...279 (Fla.2000) (noting that "subsequent tortfeasors have been liable for entire unapportionable injuries"); C.F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 127 Fla. 91, 172 So. 694, 696 (Fla.1937) ("It is settled law that where injuries aggravate an existing ailment or develop a latent one the person whose ne......