Donahue v. C.H. Buck & Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1908
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: DONAHUE v. C. H. BUCK & CO.

197 Mass. 550
83 N.E. 1090

DONAHUE
v.
C. H. BUCK & CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Feb. 28, 1908.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Wm. F. Dana, Judge.

Personal injury action by Patrick J. Donahue against H. H. Buck & Co. From a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

William B. Sprout, William [197 Mass. 552]R. Bigelow, and Louis L. Green, for plaintiff.

Peabody & Arnold, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The plaintiff while at work for the defendant as a painter, was injured by the fall of a staging, caused by the breaking of a rope strap on the block of one of the falls, by which it had been suspended. In

[83 N.E. 1091]

the performance of their work, the men constructed the staging from separate, but in themselves complete, and permanent appliances, used by the defendant in the prosecution of its business. If the staging was temporary in the sense, that after having been used on one job, the parts were separated, yet the separation was only for convenience, as when next required they would be again combined. It was incumbent upon the defendant under these conditions, whether at common law, or under Rev. Laws, c. 106, § 71, to provide reasonably safe, complete appliances, which the plaintiff in common with his fellow workmen could use in the performance of their work. A failure to make such provision, or to warn the plaintiff of defects which were not obvious, and exposed him to the risk of injury, furnished evidence of the defendant's negligence. Feeney v. York Mfg. Co., 189 Mass. 336, 75 N. E. 733;Ford v. Eastern Bridge Co., 193 Mass. 89, 94,74 N. E. 771. After having been placed in position, upon being subjected to the ordinary strain the rope strap broke, and an examination showed that it had become worn, rotten, and unfitted for use. If it had been sound, the plaintiff's expert was of opinion, that it would have safely sustained a much heavier load. Upon this evidence the jury could say, that not only was it unfit for use, but the defendant in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been aware of its defective condition. Graham v. Badger, 164 Mass. 42, 48, 41 N. E. 61;McMahon v. McHale, 174 Mass. 320, 54 N. E. 854;Ellis v. Thayer, 183 Mass. 309, 67 N. E. 325. The construction of the staging having been left to the workmen, the defendant would have been freed from liability if it had provided a supply of suitable blocks from which three falls [197 Mass. 553]of the length which...