O'Connor v. Neal
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | MORTON |
| Citation | 153 Mass. 281,26 N.E. 857 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1891 |
| Parties | O'CONNOR v. NEAL et al. |
153 Mass. 281
26 N.E. 857
O'CONNOR
v.
NEAL et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.
Feb. 25, 1891.
Report from superior court, Suffolk county; CALEB [153 Mass. 282]BLODGET, Judge.
John D. Long, for plaintiff.
John Lowell, John Lowell, Jr., and S.H. Smith, for defendants.
MORTON, J.
The plaintiff was a mason in the employ of the defendants, and at the time of the injury complained of was working in a building which they were erecting on Court street, in the city of Boston. He had been ordered earlier in the day by one of the defendants to point the windows in a front room in the second story. While engaged in the afternoon upon one of the windows in a front room in the second story. While engaged in the afternoon upon one of the windows, a laborer, also in defendants' employ, called down to him from above that he had got to have a stage, and that he (the laborer) would shift the stage. The plaintiff said “All right;” and the laborer fixed the stage which consisted of two lime barrels placed
on end, one on each side of the windows, and some three-inch plank across them. The plaintiff had used this stage in the morning in pointing other windows in the same room, and had also used it after dinner at another window just before he was hurt. As the plaintiff stepped from the window-sill on which he was standing to the staging, it tipped, and he fell through the window to the sidewalk below. The planks were sound, and did not break, and there was nothing defective about them or the barrels. It appeared that on the floor, near where one of the barrels stood, there was a lot of carpenter's chips and furring, and the plaintiff testified that as he stepped onto the stage it was the barrel nearest that stuff that he felt go. The plaintiff testified that he had been a mason 20 years, had pointed windows in as many as 20 different buildings, and had used stagings similar to this. He also said it was customary for the mason to make his outside staging, but not the inside staging. That was usually done by the laborer or mason's helper. One of the defendants was doing the moving in the room where the plaintiff was working, and the other defendant was in after dinner, but before the accident. The plaintiff claimed that the stage was negligently and defectively constructed, and of improper and insecure materials, and that there was negligence in fixing it on the part of the person intrusted by the defendants with that duty; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caron v. Boston & A.R. Co.
...charge or control” of the train, though there may be circumstances under which he would have such charge or control. O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857; Steffe v. Railroad Co., supra. It is possible that more than one person may have “the charge or control” of a train at the same ......
-
U.S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Granger
...look after certain instrumentalities "at some particular moment of the progress of the work." Author, supra; O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857. That such responsibility must be the result of the master's selection, or by his authority, is expressly provided in the claus......
-
Lynch v. Allyn
...of a room where an employe is at work cannot be said to be a defect in the condition of the ways, within the statute. O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857;May v. Machine Co., 154 Mass. 29, 27 N.E. 768. And in Regan v. Donovan, 159 Mass. 1, 33 N.E. 702, it was held that contractors, ......
-
Brady v. Norcross
...Mass. 485;Killea v. Faxon, 125 Mass. 485;Clark v. Soule, 137 Mass. 380;Hoppin v. Worcester, 140 Mass. 222, 2 N.E. 779;O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857;Kennedy v. Spring, 160 Mass. 203, 35 N.E. 779;Adasken v. Gilbert, 165 Mass. 443, 43 N.E. 199;Kalleck v. Deering, 169 Mass. 200, ......
-
Caron v. Boston & A.R. Co.
...charge or control” of the train, though there may be circumstances under which he would have such charge or control. O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857; Steffe v. Railroad Co., supra. It is possible that more than one person may have “the charge or control” of a train at the same ......
-
U.S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Granger
...look after certain instrumentalities "at some particular moment of the progress of the work." Author, supra; O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857. That such responsibility must be the result of the master's selection, or by his authority, is expressly provided in the claus......
-
Lynch v. Allyn
...of a room where an employe is at work cannot be said to be a defect in the condition of the ways, within the statute. O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857;May v. Machine Co., 154 Mass. 29, 27 N.E. 768. And in Regan v. Donovan, 159 Mass. 1, 33 N.E. 702, it was held that contractors, ......
-
Brady v. Norcross
...Mass. 485;Killea v. Faxon, 125 Mass. 485;Clark v. Soule, 137 Mass. 380;Hoppin v. Worcester, 140 Mass. 222, 2 N.E. 779;O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N.E. 857;Kennedy v. Spring, 160 Mass. 203, 35 N.E. 779;Adasken v. Gilbert, 165 Mass. 443, 43 N.E. 199;Kalleck v. Deering, 169 Mass. 200, ......