Conner v. Pioneer Fire-Proof Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1886
• Citation: 29 F. 629
• Parties: CONNER v. PIONEER FIRE-PROOF CONST. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

29 F. 629

CONNER v. PIONEER FIRE-PROOF CONST. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

December 16, 1886

A. J Rogers, for plaintiff.

O'Brien Eller & O'Brien, for defendant.

BREWER J.

In the case of Conner against the Pioneer Fire-proof Construction Company, tried before me, wherein the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, a petition for a new trial was allowed. I was in hopes that this application would be submitted to Justice MILLER, as the case is one upon which I have great doubt. The facts, in a general way, are these: The plaintiff was employed as a tiler in the West Hotel, in Minneapolis the defendant having the contract for the tiling. In pursuance of that work, it was necessary for the tilers to go upon a platform in order to reach the ceilings, which were quite high. In some of the rooms the ordinary horses used by the plasterers were high enough so that they could reach the ceiling; in others, these horses were not sufficiently high so they were in the habit of extending the legs by nailing boards upon them, which raised the height of the horses, and consequently of the platforms. Upon a platform placed upon horses thus raised, the plaintiff, with other tilers, went to work. Scarcely had he gotten thereon before something gave way, the platform fell to the floor, and he was injured.

It was claimed on the part of the plaintiff that one of the boards thus railed was defective, and insufficient to support the weight that was put upon it; and that there was negligence on the part of the defendant in sending the plaintiff onto a platform thus defectively supported.

There was testimony showing that a man by the name of Simpson and his son were employed specially to prepare the platforms; and, on the other side, there was testimony showing that the tilers themselves had charge of the preparation of these platforms; that the horses, boards, and platforms were all there, and that the duty was placed upon the tilers generally to see to the preparation of their own platforms. The jury found for the plaintiff.

I charged the jury, substantially, that if the defendant had furnished the material, horses, boards, and platforms suitable and sufficient, and left with the tilers generally the duty of preparing their own platforms, and this platform so prepared, was defective, that was the negligence of the employes, and the employer would not be liable; while, on the other hand, if the employer had employed special individuals-- Mr. Simpson and his assistant-- to attend to the work of preparing the platforms, and they failed to prepare a platform that was reasonably safe, their negligence was the negligence of the defendant, and the company would be responsible. That is really the pivotal question in the case, and it is one that, upon all the testimony, has greatly embarrassed me. I consider that a very important question; in fact, if the matter were left to my judgment alone, I think I should be...