Elliott. v. Douglas
| Decision Date | 06 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 1816.,1816. |
| Citation | 117 A. 593 |
| Parties | ELLIOTT. v. DOUGLAS. LEGRIS v. SAME. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Marble, Judge.
Actions by George Elliott and by Albert Legris, respectively, against John L. Douglas. From orders denying his motions for nonsuits, and for directed verdicts, defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Case to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs while in the defendant's employ. Trial by jury and verdicts for the plaintiffs. Transferred from the September term, 1921, of the superior court upon the defendant's exceptions to the denial of his motions for nonsuits and for directed verdicts, and to argument of counsel. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Lucier & Lucier and Alvin J. Lucier, all of Nashua, for plaintiffs.
Henry V. Cunningham, of Boston, Mass., and Banigan & Banigan, of Manchester, for defendant.
The plaintiffs were injured by the collapse of a staging upon which they were working as roofers. The building was constructed of brick, with wooden window frames set upon stone sills, the tops of which sloped downwards towards the outside of the building. The staging consisted of a row of uprights resting upon the ground some 4 feet from the building and connected by ledger boards upon which one end of the put log rested. Support for the other end of the put log was supplied by a 4x4 joist about 6 feet long, with the bottom resting upon the stone window sill.
The defendant was called as a witness by the plaintiffs, and testified that he thought the trouble came from the creeping of the bottom of the joist on the slanting surface of the stone sill. There was also testimony that the upright joist should be fastened by nailing a cleat to it and to the window frame near the top of the joist, and in like manner near the bottom.
The main controversy in the case is whether there is any evidence that the joist was not properly secured in its place. The defendant's testimony, and that of other witnesses called by him, tended to prove that all the joists were properly fastened. If there were no other evidence upon the question, the position taken in his behalf might be well grounded. But there was other evidence. The foreman for the principal contractors testified, through a deposition taken before the trial, that immediately after the accident he examined the premises and found that the staging had been tied to the building by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v. Boston & M. R. R.
...off a danger that otherwise would be present), the defendant must take reasonable care to ascertain what that conduct is. Elliott v. Douglas, SO N. H. 418, 117 A. 593. Relying upon the town for a partial performance of what was necessary to make the work place safe, the defendant is charged......
-
Douglas v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
...$1,500. The defendant failed to accept the offer, suit was brought, and a verdict for $13,500 was returned and sustained. Elliott v. Douglas, 80 N. H. 418, 117 A. 593. At the trial of the present action the defendant's head representative in the transactions (Hartnett) sought to justify the......
-
Bilodeau v. Gale Bros., Inc.
...that duty by entrusting its performance to a third person (Burke v. Boston & M. Railroad, 82 N. H. 350, 354, 134 A. 574; Elliott v. Douglas, SO N. H. 418, 117 A. 593; Carpenter v. Salmon Falls Mfg. Co., 80 N. H. 77, 79, 112 A. 909, and cases cited). The agent sent by the United Shoe Machine......
-
Racette v. Sunlight Baking Co.
...be liable "in the same manner and to the same extent" that it would have been had its own employees performed the work. Elliott v. Douglas, 80 N. H. 418, 420, 117 A. 593. The plaintiff's description of the accident would indicate that the brakes had not been correctly adjusted and that this......