Douglass v. Peck & Lines Co.

• Decision Date: 27 July 1915
• Citation: 95 A. 22
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DOUGLASS v. PECK & LINES CO. et al.

95 A. 22

DOUGLASS

v. PECK & LINES CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; James H. Webb, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by William H. Douglass against the Peck & Lines Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff for $1,200 against the defendant named, and it appeals. New trial ordered.

The Hubbell Company were general contractors engaged in making extensive repairs upon the building and garage of the defendant the Peck & Lines Company. The plaintiff's brother, George A. Douglass, had contracted with the Hubbell Company to paint this garage and building, including the interior of the elevator shaft. The defendant the Eastern Machinery Company, under contract with the Peck & Lines Company, had been engaged in installing a freight elevator in this building, and were at this time placing safety gates on the floors of the building. On July 15, 1913, the plaintiff, an employé of said George A. Douglass, went to these premises to complete the painting of the elevator shaft. The elevator was a balance elevator, and when its platform descended the weights of the elevator ascended, and conversely when the platform ascended the weights descended. The weights were in-closed in a wooden case at the side of the shaft, which was covered by crosspieces of wood about six inches wide and the same distance apart. Before beginning to paint the elevator shaft, the plaintiff had a conversation with Mr. Peck, the president of the Peck & Lines Company. These facts were not in dispute. What was said was in dispute. The plaintiff claimed that he told Mr. Peck that he had come to paint the shaft under the instruction from his employer Mr. Douglass, not to go in the elevator shaft unless the Peck & Lines Company would see that the elevator was not operated while he was at work, and thereupon Mr. Peck assured him such order would be given, and forthwith instructed Watson, the employé of the Eastern Machinery Company, and thereupon the plaintiff, relying upon this assurance, began work in the shaft below the elevator floor. The defendant the Peck & Lines Company claimed to have proved that the plaintiff told Mr. Peck he was about to begin work, and requested his company not to run the elevator while he was so at work. And Mr. Peck thereupon asked Watson if it was necessary to ran the elevator, and Watson replied yes, but he would not run it below the first floor, and Mr. Peck repeated to the plaintiff what Watson had said, and he replied, "Yes, all right," and began work. The plaintiff further claimed to have proved that to facilitate his work he stepped upon one of the crosspieces in the front of the wooden case so that his foot extended into the elevator runway in such a way as to be in the path of the descending weight, and supported himself by holding with his hand to another crosspiece, and, while so situated, without warning, the elevator was raised to the fourth floor, the weight swiftly descended upon his foot, permanently injuring it, and that the elevator was operated at this time under the direction and for the benefit of the Peck & Lines Company, who knew that the plaintiff was then in the elevator shaft. The Peck & Lines Company claimed to have proved: That the plaintiff stood with both feet upon the crossbars; that Watson was requested by an agent of the Peck & Lines Company to raise the elevator to the top floor and bring down a wagon to the second floor. Thereupon Watson raised the elevator to the top floor, and as the weights descended the plaintiff stepped off the crosspieces onto a staging, and after the weights had descended below the plaintiff, he stepped back upon the crosspieces; that Watson, not knowing the plaintiff was standing upon the crosspieces, lowered the elevator a few inches, thereby catching and injuring the plaintiff's foot; that the Peck & Lines Company had no control over the elevator or its shaft. The plaintiff further claimed that the Peck & Lines Company were in possession and control of the said premises. The plaintiff claimed that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the Peck & Lines Company and of the person operating the elevator to which he did not contribute. The company claimed that the injuries to the plaintiff were not caused by its negligence, but were caused by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

Carl Poster, of Bridgeport, for appellant. Peck & Lines Co. Robert E. De Forest and Robert G. De Forest, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.

WHEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above). The Hubbell Company were general contractors engaged in alterations and repairs upon the premises of the defendant the Peck & Lines Company. They sublet the painting contract to one Douglass. The Eastern Machinery Company was engaged, under a contract with the Peck & Lines Company, in installing an elevator in the progress of these alterations. The Hubbell Company, Douglass, and the Eastern Machinery Company were admittedly independent contractors.

As a general rule the contractee or proprietor is not liable, for injuries caused by an independent contractor or his servants, to any one. Alexander v. Sherman's Sons Co., 86 Conn. 293, 299, 85 Atl. 514.

To this general rule there are exceptions, among them are: If the work contracted for be unlawful, or such as may cause a nuisance, or is intrinsically dangerous, or in its nature calculated to cause injury to others, or if the contractee negligently employ an incompetent or untrustworthy contractor, or if he reserve in his contract general control over the contractor or his servants, or over the manner of doing the work, or if he in the progress of the work assume control or interfere with the work, or if, he is under a legal duty to see that the work is properly performed, the contractee will be responsible for resultant injury. Norwalk Gas Light Co. v. Norwalk, 63 Conn. 495, 28 Atl. 32; Lawrence v. Shipman, 39 Conn. 586; Alexander v. Sherman's Sons Co., 86 Conn. 292, 85 Atl. 514; Water Co. v. Ware, 16 Wall. 566, 21 L. Ed. 485; Creed v. Hartmann, 29 N. Y. 591, 86 Am. Dec. 341.

So, too, the contractee or proprietor will be liable for injury which results from his own negligence. Lawrence v. Shipman, 39 Conn. 586, 590.

Unless this case falls within one of these exceptions or the injury resulted from the negligence of the Peck & Lines Company, the company cannot be held liable for the injury to the plaintiff.

The real case of the plaintiff upon the facts as claimed by him was that before he went into the elevator shaft to work, the president of the Peck & Lines Company gave him assurance that the elevator should not be operated while he was thus at work.

If the jury found that this assurance had been given, and that the injury occurred through the operation of the elevator by Watson, the employé of the Eastern Machinery Company, there was ample ground for finding the Peck & Lines Company negligent, not because Watson had become the employé or agent of the Peck & Lines Company, but because that company had interfered with the work and assumed the duty of seeing that this elevator was not operated.

The court repeatedly instructed the jury that the Peck & Lines Company owed to this plaintiff the primary duty of seeing to it that...