Guy v. Northwest Bible College

• Decision Date: 02 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 37068,37068
• Citation: 64 Wn.2d 116,390 P.2d 708
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Bessie M. GUY, Respondent, v. NORTHWEST BIBLE COLLEGE, a corporation, Appellant, John C. Bryant and Jane Doe Bryant, his wife, Robert Butterfield, and Maxine Butterfield, his wife, Defendants.

Page 116

64 Wn.2d 116

390 P.2d 708

Bessie M. GUY, Respondent, v. NORTHWEST BIBLE COLLEGE, a corporation, Appellant, John C. Bryant and Jane Doe Bryant, his wife, Robert

Butterfield, and Maxine Butterfield, his wife, Defendants.

No. 37068.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 1.

April 2, 1964.

Ferguson & Burdell, W. Wesselhoeft, Seattle, for appellant.

Kahin Horswill, Keller, Rohrback, Waldo & Moren, Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester, John P. Lycette, Jr., Seattle, for respondent.

HUNTER, Judge.

The plaintiff, dean of women at the defendant (appellant) college, recovered a judgment in the lower court for personal injuries sustained when a screen in the chapel of the college fell upon her.

The college built the chapel in 1959. Although a firm of architects, Bryant and Butterfield (defendants), was employed, the college did not employ a contractor for the construction, but instead designated its own employee, one Secrist, an experienced carpenter, to superintend and co-ordinate the functions of the various subcontractors. Two screens were placed in the back of the chapel to block the view in front of the doors to the rest rooms. Each screen weighed about 250 pounds, and was not fastened to the ceiling. Foam rubber was attached to the top of the screens and they were forced against the ceiling by means of 'screw jacks.'

A detailed sketch of the screens, made by the architects, was missing and testimony was in conflict as to what the sketch contained. Secrist claimed that when he built the screens he followed the sketch, except for minor changes in the position of the screw jacks at the bottom of the screens. The architects testified that the sketch called for 'anchor bolts' at the top of the screens.

There was testimony that the screen that fell upon the plaintiff had started to fall on two previous occasions; that a professor and a part-time watchman knew of these falls. A janitor also knew that the other screen had been loose.

On December 10, 1959, plaintiff (respondent) placed a notice on the bulletin board on the screen in front of the girls' rest room, and as she was looking at the other items on the bulletin board, the screen fell upon her inflicting severe personal injuries.

Plaintiff commenced this action against the college and the architects, and the defendants cross-complained against each other. The trial court directed a verdict against the college, and submitted to the jury the question of damages and the issue of who shall ultimately bear the loss between the college and the architects. The jury returned a verdict awarding $45,000 damages to the plaintiff, and found in favor of the architects against the college. The college appeals.

The college assigns error to instruction No. 1, which directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The college argues that it is not responsible for injuries caused solely by defective plans prepared by the architects; that its duty is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and the architects alone are responsible for improperly designing the screens.

Even though we assume the plans were defective, this would not relieve the college of its responsibility to provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work. An employer has a positive, nondelegable duty to furnish his employees with a reasonably safe place to work. Siragusa v. Swedish Hospital, 60 Wash.2d 310, 373 P.2d 767 (1962); Cummins v. Dufault, 18 Wash.2d 274, 139 P.2d 308 (1943); Richardson v. Spokane, 67 Wash. 621, 122 P. 330 (1912). The rule is correctly stated in 56 C.J.S. Master and Servant § 204, which we cited in Myers v. Little Church by the Side of the Road, 37 Wash.2d 897, 227 P.2d 165 (1951) 'The duty to furnish safe tools, machinery, appliances, and places for work is a positive, affirmative duty resting on the master, and cannot be delegated to another, or, rather, cannot be delegated to another so as to relieve the master of his primary liability, and the agency or person to whom the duty is attempted to be delegated is immaterial. This is true no matter how carefully the person or agency to whom the duty is attempted to be delegated is selected or how competent or reputable he or it may be. * * *'

See White v. Consolidated Freight Lines, 192 Wash. 146, 73 P.2d 358 (1937); Howland v. Standard Milling & Logging Co., 50 Wash. 34, 96 P. 686 (1908).

There is no distinction between responsibility for design and responsibility for maintenance, and the college cannot avoid liability by reason of the allegedly defective plans of the architects that it selected. The college, acting through its agents, built and maintained the screens. Construing all the evidence in favor of the college, we hold that the minds of reasonable men could not differ in concluding that the college was negligent in construction or maintenance. Although the architects may ultimately bear the loss in a situation such as this, the primary duty of the employer to provide a reasonably safe place to work is not affected. Here the issue of the architects'...