Carnell v. Halpin

• Decision Date: 10 December 1909
• Parties: CARNELL v. HALPIN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

159 Mich. 42
123 N.W. 578

CARNELL
v.
HALPIN.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 10, 1909.

Errot to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph W. Donovan, Judge.

Action by Frank B. Carnell against Joseph J. Halpin. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before BLAIR, C. J., and GRANT, MOORE, McALVAY, and BROOKE, JJ.

[123 N.W. 578]

Charles T. Wilkins, for appellant.

Frank C. Cook, for appellee.

MOORE, J.

This case was begun to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff December 16, 1904, by a fall caused by the breaking of part of a scaffold on which he was working for the defendant in the construction of storm windows in a church at Sandwich, Ontario. The plaintiff and the defendant are both residents of Detroit, where the latter is engaged in the manufacture of stained and other glass windows, and in setting them. The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of defendant. The case is brought here by writ of error.

The plaintiff is a lead glazier, and had been engaged in that trade for about a year previous to the time of entering defendant's employ, July, 1904. It is his claim: That before that time he had no experience in any work outside shopwork, and his work in the defendant's employ was benchwork in the defendant's factory, putting together glass that had been cut to pattern, in stained, pattern, and figured windows. That after that date until the injuries occurred he had been engaged on only two jobs outside defendant's factory, both of which were on church windows, on one of which his work was entirely inside the church and was done from planks laid across painters' horses, and the outside work on the other of which was done from ladders; plaintiff holding the base of the ladder while another man worked on it. It was his further claim that he had never had anyexperience on a scaffold, or in building a scaffold, or with lumber or in carpentering. The defendant had a contract to put up some 22 large storm windows, and sent the plaintiff there with James Bracken, foreman in his business who was in charge of the work. Later on Walters and one Bealer were sent over to help with the work. The work was going on for several days when it was decided to put up a scaffold. It was the testimony of defendant that he and Mr. Bracken called at a lumber yard in Windsor, and the proprietor was told of the job at Sandwich, and ‘that Bracken was going to look after it for me and to give him at the...