O'Donnell v. Sargent

• Decision Date: 13 July 1897
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: O'DONNELL v. SARGENT et al.

38 A. 216

69 Conn. 476

O'DONNELL

v. SARGENT et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 13, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Action by Thomas O'Donnell against Sargent & Co. to recover damages for personal injuries. Upon the overruling of defendants' demurrer to the complaint, they refused to plead over, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff for nominal damages. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The complaint set forth the following facts: "(1) On and prior to January 16, 1894, the defendant was engaged in carrying on a manufacturing business in the city of New Haven, in said town of New Haven, and, for the purpose of propelling its machinery, owned, controlled, managed, and ran a large steam engine, connected with which was a line of heavy shafting, in the upper part and near the ceiling of the room in which said engine was located; and said line of shafting was situated about twenty feet from the flooring of said engine room, and was accessible and could be reached only by a ladder, with one end thereof resting on the floor of said room, and the other end against said shafting; and, in order to keep said shafting in running order, it was necessary to oil the same at least twice every twenty-four hours, and said oiling could be done only by climbing up upon said ladder placed as aforesaid; and the defendant had the exclusive control and management of said engine and shafting, and provided the ladder to be placed as aforesaid for the purpose of oiling said line of shafting, and it was the defendant's duty to provide a suitable ladder, so made that the same would be safe to climb upon, and with the lower end of it so provided with sharp points or spikes that the same would not and could not slip when placed on the floor of said engine room as aforesaid. (2) On said 16th day of January, 1894, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as fireman to attend said engine, and as a part of his work as such fireman he was directed and ordered by the defendant to oil said line of shafting at its bearings every morning just before 7 o'clock, and every noon between the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and to oil the same by placing the ladder provided by the defendant upon the floor of said engine room, with the top of said ladder resting against said line of shafting and against the wooden beam just under said shafting, according as the bearings to be oiled could be made most accessible; and the defendant supplied the ladder on which the plaintiff had to climb to do said oiling. (3) On said 16th day of January, 1894, the said ladder provided by the defendant was unsafe, unsuitable, and unfit to climb upon to oil said line of shafting as aforesaid, in that it was not provided with any sharp points, spikes, prods, or any other suitable means to prevent its slipping on the floor of said engine room when placed in position to oil said line of shafting, and in that the agents, servants, and employes of the defendant, and the defendant, had carelessly and wantonly removed, broken, cut off, and taken away the spikes and prods which had formerly been in the lower end of said ladder; and the floor of said engine room was hard, and worn smooth, so that the ladder provided by the defendant could not stand safely upon said floor unless properly provided with prods and spikes in the lower end thereof to keep said ladder from slipping. (4) On said 16th day of January, 1894, the plaintiff, while under orders as aforesaid to oil said line of shafting, climbed upon said ladder while placed in the ordinary position necessary and convenient to do said work, and without any fault or negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and while using ordinary and reasonable care, the foot or lower end of said ladder suddenly slipped and moved outwards upon said floor, thereby pulling the upper end off its resting and bearing, and thereby causing said ladder to fall flat upon said floor while the plaintiff was on the upper part of the same, engaged in oiling said shafting; and thereby the plaintiff fell and was thrown upon the floor of said engine room, a distance of about eighteen feet. (5) By reason of said fall the plaintiff hit his left foot upon the floor of said engine room with great force, and thereby bruised, strained, wrenched, twisted, and severely injured his left ankle and foot, and the cords and muscles thereof, so that the said ankle became weak, lame, and swollen, and very painful to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was weak, sick, and lame for a long time thereafter, to wit, for the period of seven months, and unable to walk, stand, or attend to any of his ordinary business; and said injury is permanent and incurable, and the...