Hall v. Bates
| Decision Date | 25 November 1913 |
| Citation | 103 N.E. 285,216 Mass. 140 |
| Parties | HALL v. BATES et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John F. Malley and Thos. C. Malley, both of Springfield, for plaintiff.
Brooks & Hamilton, of Springfield, for defendants.
By the giving way of a bracket supporting the staging where the plaintiff was at work shingling the roop of a house under construction by the defendants, he was thrown to the ground suffering personal injuries for which he seeks damages. A verdict having been ordered for the defendants, the case is here on exceptions to the exclusion of evidence. The plaintiff not having been in their employment, the seventh is the only count stating a cause of action, and the offers of proof having been properly made were sufficient if admitted in evidence to send the case to the jury on the questions of the plaintiff's due care, the assumption of the risk duly pleaded in the answer, and whether the bracket was a reasonably safe appliance. Cahill v. Phelps, 198 Mass. 332, 84 N.E. 496; Noyes v. Boston & Maine R R., 213 Mass. 9, 99 N.E. 457; Coughlin v. Boston Tow Boat Co., 151 Mass. 92, 23 N.E. 721; Feneff v Boston & Maine R. R., 196 Mass. 575, 82 N.E. 705; Feeney v. York Mfg. Co., 189 Mass. 336, 75 N.E. 733; Donahue v. Buck Co., 197 Mass. 550, 552, 553, 83 N.E. 1090, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 476; Jellow v. Fore River Ship Building Co., 201 Mass. 464, 467, 87 N.E. 906; Crimmins v. Booth, 202 Mass. 17, 23, 88 N.E. 449. But the plaintiff must show as alleged, that the defendants had assumed the duty of furnishing suitable brackets. Wherever the duty of providing appliances or materials to the injured workman is undertaken this obligation arises, even if no contractual relation exists between the parties. Stewart v. Harvard College, 12 Allen, 58; Mulchey v. Methodist Religious Society, 125 Mass. 487; D'Almeida v. Boston & Maine R. R., 209 Mass. 81, 87, 88, 95 N.E. 398, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 751; Coughtry v. Globe Woolen Co., 56 N.Y. 124, 15 Am. Rep. 387.
Upon the evidence and offers of proof which were excluded, the jury under appropriate instructions would have been justified in imposing this liability. The plaintiff's employers by their contract with the defendants were 'to perform and furnish all the carpenter work except smoothing the floors.' This agreement, even if the carpenters were to bring their tools ordinarily used, did not of itself preclude the plaintiff from showing that the defendants undertook to provide the stagings used in shingling the roof. Earnshaw shaw v. Whittemore, 194 Mass. 187, 191, 80 N.E. 520. It appears that in the development of land owned by them, of which the lot in evidence is a part, they caused plans to be prepared. The building operations, however, according to the testimony of the defendant Bates, called as a witness by the plaintiff, had been intrusted to one Graves, with full authority to order lumber and materials, and to superintend the work. The plaintiff thereupon offered to show that the brackets and materials for the staging were supplied by Graves, but upon the ground that no express authority had been shown the evidence was ruled inadmissible until a proper foundation had been laid. Plainly the plaintiff was not limited in his proof as to the scope of the agency by the evidence of this witness, or bound to accept his statements as absolutely true. If the order of proof is within the discretion of the presiding judge, as it certainly is, this ruling was adhered to, although the plaintiff repeatedly renewed the offer until the trial closed. No contract in writing between the principals and their agent existed, and the scope of the agency could be proved by any relevant testimony. 'Limitations as between the principal and agent of an apparently general authority, not brought to the knowledge of third persons, do not affect the rights of the latter.' Brooks v. Shaw, 197 Mass. 376, 380, 84 N.E. 110; Lloyd v. Grace (1912) A. C. 716, 736, 737.
The use by the defendants of the brackets and materials for the staging in the erection of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrett Co. v. Panther Rubber Mfg. Co., 2167.
...& Partridge, Inc., v. Hobbs, 255 Mass. 189, 151 N. E. 59; Danforth v. Chandler, 237 Mass. 518, 520, 522, 130 N. E. 105; Hall v. Bates, 216 Mass. 140, 103 N. E. 285. We think the District Court made no error in admitting evidence of statements by Cowdery, either in person or by telephone, te......
-
Boston Food Products Co. v. Wilson & Co.
...174 Mass. 416, 422, 54 N. E. 883,75 Am. St. Rep. 358. And the order of proof was within the discretion of the court. Hall v. Bates, 216 Mass. 140, 143, 103 N. E. 285;Lowell Trust Co. v. Wolff, 223 Mass. 168, 111 N. E. 798. The defendant offered to show what Heyer's duties were as manager of......
-
Barrett v. Bldg. Patent Scaffolding Co.
...of fifty sixteen-foot planks. The defendant concedes that the contract ‘include implicitly the word ‘suitable.” See Hall v. Bates, 216 Mass. 140, 142, 103 N.E. 285. The scaffolding consisted of upright posts that rested on the floor of the church, to which were nailed ledger boards, and the......
-
Collins v. Splane
...to prove any contractual relation between himself and the defendant. Stewart v. Harvard College, 12 Allen, 58, 67;Hall v. Bates, 216 Mass. 140, 142, 103 N. E. 285. It is further pressed in argument that as matter of law the acts of the defendant's servants or agents in undertaking to raise ......