Donahue v. C.H. Buck & Co.

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

197 Mass. 550

83 N.E. 1090

DONAHUE v. C. H. BUCK & CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 28, 1908

COUNSEL

William B. Sprout, William R. Bigelow, and Louis L. Green, for plaintiff.

Peabody & Arnold, for defendant.

OPINION

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 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 of the length which the plaintiff, and his fellow workman were directed to get could have been selected. Adasken v. Gilbert, 165 Mass. 443, 445, 43 N.E. 199; Miller v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 175 Mass. 363, 56 N.E. 282. But from the evidence it appears, that upon examination the only falls available, or at their disposal, of this kind, were only three, including the one with the defective block, and having neglected to provide a suitable supply from...