Falardeau v. Hoar

• Decision Date: 20 June 1906
• Citation: 192 Mass. 263,78 N.E. 456
• Parties: FALARDEAU v. HOAR et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

192 Mass. 263

78 N.E. 456

FALARDEAU v. HOAR et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 20, 1906

COUNSEL

C. E. Washburn, for plaintiff.

Edward F. McClennen, Harrison F. Lyman, and Brandeis, Dunbar & Nutter, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The plaintiff, while temporarily employed in a building held and managed by the defendants as lessees, fell through a trapdoor in the floor of one of the halls, and was injured. This trapdoor was set in an opening in the floor, and could be lifted out of the opening by a ring. There was much contradiction between the defendants' witnesses and the plaintiff in regard to some of the material facts in the case; but as the jury presumably believed the plaintiff, we must consider the exceptions in the aspect of the testimony which is most favorable to him.

He testified that he had often passed through this hall but never had noticed the trapdoor. We cannot say as matter of law that his failure to notice it shows a lack of due care. Johnson v. Field-Thurber Company, 171 Mass. 481, 51 N.E. 18. According to his account of the accident, he was passing through the hall in the performance of his duty walking in the usual way, when he met King, an assistant of the janitor, and went on a little further, after which he remembered nothing more until he found himself in the hospital. The evidence showed that King had taken out the trapdoor to put some ash cans into the cellar, leaving an opening in the floor four feet square, through which the plaintiff fell. There was nothing there but the opening to indicate that the floor was not in its usual safe condition. There was testimony from a medical expert that a person receiving a severe blow on the head as the plaintiff did, ordinarily loses the recollection of everything occurring immediately before the blow. We are of opinion that it was a question for the jury whether the plaintiff, walking there in an ordinary way in the performance of his duty, was in the exercise of due care, even though he failed to notice an opening in the floor in a hall where he had always found the floor in perfect condition, and where he had reason to believe that it was absolutely safe. Thyng v. Fitchburg Railroad Company, 156 Mass. 13, 30 N.E. 169, 32 Am. St Rep. 425; Maguire v. Fitchburg Railroad Company, 146 Mass. 379, 15 N.E. 904. If, in looking forward the hall seemed in its usual condition, we cannot say as a matter of law that he was bound so to scrutinize the floor as to be sure that there was no opening in it. The danger that one might step into such an opening without noticing it was recognized by the janitor who testified as follows: 'I had always put a stepladder or settee there as a protection when I opened the trapdoor. I did not give King any instructions to do this on the morning of the accident, and I did not look to see whether it had been done, because he had always put something there, and of course I supposed he knew enough to do it that time.'

The defendants contend that there was no evidence of negligence on their part. It was their duty, in a general way, to have the building in a safe condition for those who were working in it. An opening in the floor of a hall rendered it unsafe for those who had occasion to pass through the hall without knowledge of the opening. Such an opening was in the nature of a trap for those who were ignorant of it, and it was the duty of the defendants to give warning of it. This opening would be made only at...