Consumers' Brewing Co v. Doyle's Adm'x
| Decision Date | 04 February 1904 |
| Parties | CONSUMERS' BREWING CO. v. DOYLE'S ADM'X. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
NEGLIGENCE—CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE—ACCIDENT—ACTION FOR INJURIES-BURDEN OF PROOF.
1. In an action for personal injuries, negligence of defendant must be established by affirmative evidence, which, while it need not be direct and positive, by some one who witnessed the occurrence and saw how it happened, yet must show more than a probability of a negligent act, and must be such as to satisfy reasonable and well-balanced minds that the injury resulted from defendant's negligence.
2. Plaintiff's intestate was employed by a painter to paint a sign over the front of defendant's building, about 15 feet from the ground. A swinging stage was erected, supported by ropes fastened to the top of the building, and which were allowed to hang from the ends of the stage to the ground below. While plaintiff's intestate was on this stage, engaged in painting the sign, defendant's wagons were constantly driving up to the front door of the building, which was under the stage, for the purpose of loading and unloading boxes. One wagon stood there about 25 minutes, and when it started away, one of the ropes became, or had already become, entangled in one of the wheels; and, as the wagon moved off, the stage received a jerk, precipitating plaintiff's intestate to the ground. Held that, if there was any negligence on the part of defendant or his servants, there was an equal degree of concurrent negligence on the part of plaintiff's intestate, in failing to guard against any danger rendered imminent by the presence of the wagon and its motions, which precluded a recovery.
3. Where one engaged in painting a sign on the side of a building about 15 feet from the ground was precipitated from the staging on which he was working, owing to the ropes suspending the staging, and which had fallen to the ground, becoming entangled with the wheels of a wagon, which had stood under the staging for some 25 minutes, there being nothing to suggest such an occurrence to either the painter or the driver of the wagon, and it being a matter of pure speculation as to how or when the rope became entangled with the wagon wheel, the consequent injury of the painter must be deemed an accident for which there could be no recovery.
Error to Law and Chancery Court of City of Norfolk.
Action by the administratrix of Charles H. Doyle against the Consumers' Brewing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
White, Tunstall & Thorn, P. H. & H. C. Cabell, and G. M. Dillard, for plaintiff in error.
Thos. H. Wilcox and Hubard & Hubard, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by the administratrix of Charles H. Doyle to recover from the Consumers' Brewing Company damages for the alleged negligent killing of the plaintiff's intestate by the servants of the defendant company.
It appears that the brewing company employed the firm of Dalby & Butler to paint its building, and to paint its name across the front of said building. This firm employed the plaintiff's intestate, Charles H. Doyle, to paint the sign, which was about 15 feet from the ground. A swinging stage was erected by these painters, from which the lettering was to be done. This stage was supported by ropes fastened to the top of the building, and during the progress of the work these ropes were allowed to hang from the ends of the stage to the ground below; the northern rope being coiled on the ground near the large front door of the building, and the southern rope fastened around a knob that came out of the building near a small south door.
While Doyle was on this stage, engaged in painting the sign, the wagons of the brewing company were constantly driving up to the large front door of the building, which was under the stage, for the purpose of loading and unloading boxes and crates of beer. In the afternoon of the day, while Doyle was upon the stage, a covered wagon of the defendant company drove up to the building to unload beer crates. This consumed about 25 minutes, when the driver came out of the building and got upon the wagon, and started immediately for the stable. In some way, not explained, the rope which lay coiled upon the ground, near the large door, became, or had already become, entangled in one of the wheels; and, as the wagon moved off, the stage received a jerk, causing Doyle to fall to the ground, producing injuries from the effects of which he died several days thereafter.
The essential grievance stated in the declaration is that the defendant company, regardless of its duty in the premises, had so negligently and carelessly governed, controlled, managed, and driven its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Puffer v. Hub Cigar Store, 10676
...could not have been anticipated by an ordinarily prudent person. Barbee v. Amory, 106 W.Va. 507, 146 S.E. 59; Consumers' Brewing Company v. Doyle's Adm'x, 102 Va. 399, 46 S.E. 390; Fowlks v. Southern Railway Company, 96 Va. 742, 32 S.E. 464; Southern Railway Company v. Bell, 4 Cir., 114 F.2......
-
Hartley v. Crede
...could not have been anticipated by an ordinarily prudent person. Barbee v. Amory, 106 W.Va. 507, 146 S.E. 59; Consumers' Brewing Company v. Doyle's Adm'x, 102 Va. 399, 46 S.E. 390; Fowlks v. Southern Railway Company, 96 Va. 742, 32 S.E. 464; Southern Railway Company v. Bell, 4 Cir., 114 F.2......
-
Matthews v. Cumberland & Allegheny Gas Co.
... ... the existing temporary shortage of gas which affected its consumers in Buckhannon. By permitting him to remain, without objection and with ... Barbee v. Amory, 106 W.Va. 507, 146 S.E. 59; Consumers' Brewing Company v ... Page 189 ... Doyle's Adm'x, 102 Va. 399, 46 S.E. 390; ... ...
-
State ex rel. Cox v. Sims, 10588
...from an event which was not expected and could not have been anticipated by an ordinarily prudent person. Consumers' Brewing Company v. Doyle's Adm'x, 102 Va. 399, 46 S.E. 390; Fowlks v. Southern Railway Company, 96 Va. 742, 32 S.E. 464; Southern Railway Company v. Bell, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 34......