Core Contracting Co. v. Schaeffer

• Decision Date: 01 December 1926
• Docket Number: 5.
• Citation: 135 A. 318,151 Md. 494
• Parties: CORE CONTRACTING CO. ET AL. v. SCHAEFFER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

135 A. 318

151 Md. 494

CORE CONTRACTING CO. ET AL. v. SCHAEFFER.

No. 5.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 1, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Charles F. Stein Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Roland M Schaeffer, opposed by the J. Arthur Limerick Company principal contractor, and the Core Contracting Company subcontractor, employers, and Maryland Casualty Company and Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, of London, England, insurers. Compensation was awarded against all defendants, and the Core Contracting Company and its insurer appealed to the superior court of Baltimore City. From a judgment confirming the decision of the Industrial Accident Commission, Core Contracting Company and its insurer appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and WALSH, JJ.

John H. Skeen, of Baltimore (Emory, Beeuwkes & Skeen, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

William W. Powell, of Baltimore (Paul Johannsen, of Baltimore, on the brief) for appellee Roland M. Schaeffer.

William K. Lloyd, of Baltimore (Austin J. Lilly, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees J. Arthur Limerick Company and Maryland Casualty Company.

DIGGES J.

This case was heard in the superior court of Baltimore City on an appeal by the Core Contracting Company, a body corporate, and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, of London, England, from the finding of the Industrial Accident Commission of Maryland awarding compensation to Roland M. Schaeffer. That appeal resulted in a confirmance of the decision of the commission, from which judgment this appeal is taken. Subsequent to the determination in the lower court the appellants filed a motion in arrest of judgment, assigning as reasons therefor:

"(1) Because the jury have not, in their verdict, found in accordance with and in reference to the different issues in the case. (2) Because of the entry of appearance in the case of counsel for the J. Arthur Limerick Company and the Maryland Casualty Company. (3) Because of the part taken in the trial of the case by counsel for clients not parties to the proceedings."

This motion was overruled. There are four exceptions contained in the record, the first, third, and fourth of which relate to the same question raised by the motion in arrest of judgment. The second exception is to the action of the court in its rulings on the prayers; these rulings are now conceded to be correct, in the brief of the appellants and at the argument in this court, with the possible exception of the court's rejection of the appellants' first prayer. The record therefore discloses that there is only one real question involved in the case, namely, whether or not the J. Arthur Limerick Company and the Maryland Casualty Company, its insurer, were entitled to participate in the trial in the lower court by being represented by counsel and through this counsel cross-examining witnesses and addressing the jury. If this question is answered in the affirmative, it is conceded by the appellants that there was no error in any of the rulings of the lower court. Should, however, this question be answered in the negative, the further question could arise as to whether or not the participation in the trial, as stated, by the J. Arthur Limerick Company and the Maryland Casualty Company, resulted in injury to the appellants, or, in other words, if it was error, is it reversible error?

It is necessary to briefly summarize the facts in order to show the status of the case and the situation of the parties at the time of the trial below, when the court permitted counsel for the J. Arthur Limerick Company and the Maryland Casualty Company to participate in the trial. In its inception the case grew out of an accident resulting in the injury to Roland M. Schaeffer, a general employee of the appellant, the Core Contracting Company. The J. Arthur Limerick Company, as principal contractor, had been awarded a contract for the erection of a war memorial in the Fifth Regiment Armory in Baltimore City. In the performance of this contract it was necessary to have iron and wood work done, and also to have erected a scaffold for the purpose of doing this work and putting the memorial tablet in place. The J. Arthur Limerick Company, being bronze founders and manufacturers of metal ornaments, subcontracted with Dietrich Bros. for the doing of the iron and wood work, and with Tase & Norris Company for the erection of the scaffold, and in turn Dietrich Bros. employed the Core Contracting Company to perform the work for which they had contracted. The day the accident occurred the scaffold had been erected near one of the entrances to the armory, and on this day the Limerick Company was notified that the use of the armory would be required that night for the holding of a political meeting therein, and was told that the scaffold at the entrance must be moved. Schaeffer, the claimant, was on the scaffold engaged in iron work contracted to be done by the Core Contracting Company, his employer. Martin D. Chapman, Schaffer's immediate superior, was not present on the day of the accident, having left Baltimore, leaving Schaeffer in charge of his work, with instructions to hurry it along and take whatever instructions the Limerick Company people gave him, which, from the record, appeared to be the location of holes to be drilled for the purpose of attaching the tablet. Some time in the afternoon an employee of the city appeared for the purpose of moving the scaffold; thereupon the claimant, Schaeffer, who was at that time working on the scaffold, came down and stood in the street near the entrance to the armory. Thereafter the city employee requested those standing around, both the employees of the Limerick Company and the Core Contracting Company, to help move the scaffold. This the claimant, Schaeffer, did, and while the scaffold was being removed it collapsed and injured Schaeffer.

Shortly after the injury application was made to the State Industrial Accident Commission for compensation. Subsequently a hearing was had, participated in by the J. Arthur Limerick Company and its insurer, the Maryland Casualty Company, and the Core Contracting Company and its insurer, the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation; at which hearing the issues presented for determination were: (1) Whether the claimant met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; (2) whether the disability complained of is the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the injured's employment; and (3) to determine any other issue of law or fact pertinent to the case. The finding of the commission was: That Roland M. Schaeffer was an employee of the Core Contracting Company, and that the J. Arthur Limerick Company was principal contractor; that the insurer of the J. Arthur...