Fellsmere Sugar Co. v. Marshall
| Citation | 123 Fla. 378,167 So. 649 |
| Parties | FELLSMERE SUGAR CO. v. MARSHALL. |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1935 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
On Rehearing May 6, 1936.
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Indian River County; Elwyn Thomas, Judge.
Action by V. B. Marshall against the Fellsmere Sugar Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL Macfarlane, Jackson, Hansbrough & Ferguson, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Dame & Regers, of Fort Pierce, for defendant in error.
Writ of error in this cause is to a verdict and judgment awarding damages for personal injuries in favor of the defendant in error. Numerous questions are argued, but they all turn on whether or not the master furnished the defendant in error a reasonably safe place to work, including instrumentalities to work with.
Defendant in error was a journeyman carpenter, and at the time of the accident in which he was injured was working for the plaintiff in error in the construction or repair of a sugar mill in Indian River County. He had constructed a scaffold or platform on the inside of one tank and over the top of another, from which he descended to the ground about 16 or 18 feet by means of a ladder. Both tanks formed part of the sugar mill property.
The declaration alleges that the ladder was furnished the defendant in error by the foreman of the plaintiff in error and that it was about 18 inches too short. To compensate for the insufficient length of the ladder, a 4 by 4 timber was nailed securely to the side of the second tank to be used as a handhold or rest to assist the workmen in getting on the ladder for the purpose of descending to the ground from the platform over the tank.
On the day of the accident from which defendant in error was injured, he approached the ladder with a number of tools on his arm, and, when he placed his hand on the 4 by 4 timber which had been placed on the side of the tank for a handhold or rest, it had been released and gave way, causing the defendant in error to fall to the ground, injuring his foot severely and producing other bodily injuries. The evidence discloses that some of the injuries were permanent, that they were very painful, and caused defendant in error great bodily pain and suffering.
The evidence discloses that, if the ladder had been long enough the handhold would not have been necessary. If that be true the ultimate, proximate cause of the accident was the insufficient length of the ladder. In going on the ladder, no negligence is charged or attributed to defendant in error. The ladder was furnished by the master. True, it might have been lengthened, but instead the handhold was substituted with the master's knowledge and consent. It was the duty of the master to furnish a ladder of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Hollywood v. Bair
......319, 156 So. 601;. Kirkland v. City of Gainesville, 122 Fla. 765, 166. So. 460; Fellsmere Sugar Co. v. Marshall, 123 Fla. 378, 167 So. 649; Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554, 169 So. ......
-
Kenan v. Walker
...this case is ruled by the law as stated by this court in the case of Fellsmere Sugar Co. v. Marshall, filed November 4, 1935, reported 167 So. 649. the question as to whether or not the defendant was negligent in not having used reasonable care to provide a safe place for the workman to wor......