Coleman v. Benjamin F. Smith Co.

Decision Date12 January 1910
Citation30 R.I. 250,74 A. 915
PartiesCOLEMAN v. BENJAMIN F. SMITH CO.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; George T. Brown, Judge.

Action by James Coleman against Benjamin F. Smith Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Plaintiff ordered to show cause why judgment should not be entered for defendant.

Cooney & Cahill, for plaintiff. Gardner, Pirce & Thornley (William H. Camfield, of counsel), for defendant.

BLODGETT, J. On January 3, 1907, the plaintiff, an employe of the Providence Ice Company, had his right leg broken by the falling of a rafter from the top of an icehouse, then being constructed for it by the defendant, and has recovered a verdict in the superior court. The defendant's motion for a new trial having been denied, the case has been brought here on defendant's exceptions to the rulings of the trial judge during the trial and to the denial of the motion for a new trial; the grounds of the latter motion being that the verdict was against the law and the evidence and that the damages were excessive.

The icehouse in question was a building of more than 170 feet in length from north to south and of more than 130 feet in width, and was divided into five compartments, each of about 33 feet in width, extending the entire width of the building. It was desired to complete the structure as soon as possible, in order that it might be available for the storage of the ice which might be cut during that winter, and for that purpose the defendant's employes had been working overtime, and certain employes of the Ice Company were also engaged in grading the floor of the building, while the carpenters were still at work, by spreading sand thereon meanwhile. While the plaintiff was carrying sand in a basket from a pile at the south of the building, through an opening left in the south wall for the use of workmen, and while he was endeavoring to reach the third compartment, and passing through the second, a rafter about 16 feet in length, 2 inches thick, and 8 inches wide, escaped from the hands of the workmen who were moving it, about 30 feet above the head of the plaintiff, and fell to the ground, and upon a rebound broke the plaintiff's leg. It had rained the previous day, and the rain had been followed by cold weather, so that ice had formed, and it was necessary for the carpenters on the flat roof to use "creepers" on their feet to keep from slipping. The plaintiff had been working at the premises in question about a week prior to the accident, and for about an hour on the day in question he, with several other employes of the Ice Company, had been carrying sand into the building for the purpose described, having been engaged in carrying sawdust into the building for about an hour immediately prior to beginning to carry sand as above stated.

The plaintiff testified that both his sight and hearing were good and that there was good light at the time of the accident. The evidence further shows that the walls of the building had been erected, and that certain large tie beams had been placed in position between the compartments and for the full length of the building, and that the defendant's workmen, to the number of six, at least, were then engaged in placing in position pur-lines from the tie beams to the sides of the building, and that some 600 rafters similar to the one which fell on the plaintiff had been raised and laid on these tie beams and such of the purlines as were already in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Moncion v. Bertrand
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1925
    ... ... Ferguson, 77 Vt. 433, 60 A, 802; Linsley v. Linsley, 26 Vt. 123; Stevens v. Smith, 21 Vt. 90; Copper Co. v. Copper Mining Co., 33 Vt. 92; ... 127 A. 374 ... Goodnow v. Parsons, 36 ... ...
  • Poole v. Lutz & Schmidt, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • May 17, 1938
    ...Hughes, 253 Ky. 382, 69 S.W. (2d) 711; Young's Adm'r v. Farmers & Depositors Bank, 267 Ky. 845, 103 S.W. (2d) 667; Coleman v. Benjamin F. Smith Company, 30 R.I. 250, 74 A. 915; Dietz v. Magill, Mo. App., 104 S.W. (2d) 707, 709. See, also, Myers v. Cassity, 209 Ky. 315, 272 S.W. 718; Cumberl......
  • Taylor v. Du Pont Building Corporation, a Corporation of State
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • November 8, 1916
    ...support it. However, the following cases, among many, are given, viz: Drier v. McDermott, 157 Iowa 726, 141 N.W. 315, 319; Coleman v. Smith Co., 30 R.I. 250, 74 A. 915. CONRAD, J., delivering the opinion of the The plaintiff in error appeals to this court on the ground that the court below ......
  • Wilmarth v. Cray
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1930
    ...may be negligent if he exposes himself to obvious danger. Straight v. Great Western Light Co., 73 Colo. 188, 214 P. 397; Coleman v. Smith Co., 30 R. I. 250, 74 A. 915; 45 C. J. 944. Nor do we find any indication that it misled the jury. It must be read in connection with the earlier portion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT