Haworth v. Seevers Manuf'g Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1892
• Citation: 51 N.W. 68,87 Iowa 765
• Parties: HAWORTH v. SEEVERS MANUF'G CO. ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

87 Iowa 765

51 N.W. 68

HAWORTH

v.SEEVERS MANUF'G CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 8, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Mahaska county; J. K. JOHNSON, Judge.

Action for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.J. F. & W. R. Lacy and Seevers & Seevers, for appellants.

Blanchard & Preston and Bolton & McCoy, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

1. Seevers Manufacturing Co. is a copartnership composed of Thomas and H. W. Seevers, and the general business of the firm is the manufacture of steam-heaters, iron bridges, and various kinds of machinery, at Oskaloosa, Iowa. About the 25th day of March, 1886, in aid of its business, the firm was engaged in the erection of a wooden building near its works, and the plaintiff, who is a boiler-maker by trade, and a day-laborer, was in the employ of the firm, and working on the building. For the purpose of putting the rafters in position a stage or scaffold was made on the upper joists, that had been put in position, 8 feet apart, by laying across them boards 16 feet long, and generally of 1 inch in thickness. The plaintiff, while engaged with two others, in putting up the rafters, was standing on a wooden horse about two and one-half feet high, holding rafters, while the others nailed them in place. After the rafters were nailed, he stepped backwards, from the horse to the platform, and onto an old, knotty board that had been placed therein, which broke, and he fell to the ground, about ten feet, receiving a spinal injury resulting in a paralysis of the lower limbs and the lower part of his body, rendering him unable to stand, and his injuries are permanent. The judgment is for $2,000, which appellants concede is not excessive if plaintiff is entitled to recover.

2. The ninth instruction given by the court is as follows: “(9) As to the first of said alleged grounds of negligence on the part of defendants hereinbefore stated, you are instructed as follows: If you find, from the evidence, that the defendants attempted to manage the erection of the building, and did not employ a skillful foreman or carpenter to erect the same, you will next consider whether or not this was carelessness or negligence on the part of defendants. If, however, you find, from the evidence, that this allegation is not proved, then you need pursue this inquiry no further, but will find for defendants to this extent.” It is said by appellants that the court erred in this instruction, because they were not bound to employ “a skilled foreman or carpenter; that they had the undoubted right to superintend the erection of their own building, unless they were incompetent to perform the duties which devolved upon them;” and it is further said that the issues in the case present no question as to their competency, nor is there testimony tending to support such a claim. The court stated to the jury, in substance, the allegations or grounds of negligence in the petition as follows: (1) That the defendants attempted to manage the erection of said building, and did not employ a skilled foreman or carpenter to erect said building. (2) That the defendants were negligent in employing unskilled laborers for work which required skilled workmen. (3) That defendants were careless and negligent in directing the construction of said scaffolding. (4) The defendants were careless and negligent in putting, or causing to be put, unsound and rotten material into said scaffolding. (5) That defendants were careless and negligent in directing and compelling plaintiff to go on said scaffolding. (6) That defendants were negligent and careless in not causing said scaffolding to be properly constructed and supported. There was evidence tending to establish the following additional facts: That the erection of the building was under the supervision of Thomas and H. W. Seevers, Thomas being presumably in charge; that the boards in the platform were such as Thomas directed to be used; that an old shed had been torn down, by direction of Thomas, and the boards piled up near by; that the board which broke was one of the pile, “knotty,” and unsafe for such a purpose; that the platform was made the day before the injury, when the plaintiff was not at work on the building; that on the next day he again went to work, and was told to help one Baker,--and the following is a part of his testimony: “When we started to work on that morning, the day I was hurt, they told me to go to work. Harry Seevers told me to go to work with Alec Baker, and we went to the bottom and got all the rafters out, and Alec had the patterns made for them. I would get the two by fours, and Alec would saw them, and, when we got them sawed, we would put them two by two, in their places, and then put them up on the building. Question. What direction was given to you about that? Answer. I was told to work with Alec Baker, and when he went to put up the rafters of course I had to go up with him. Alec Baker would get on one side, and I would hand him up the rafters, and he would put them up. He would hold one till I got another, and then we had a horse up there. I got on that, and held the rafters in place while he and Rowe Browherd nailed them. Baker would nail one end, and Browherd the other. When I got down off the horse Baker got up and nailed them in the center. There were eight pairs of rafters on the building. I held the rafters up while they were nailed. Baker nailed them. While he was nailing one end I held them in place. I do not remember how the first two were put up, but after that I steadied them while he nailed them. He did all the nailing, all the way through. Q. Who told you to help him put them up? A. Harry Seevers. He got me up there, all the way through. Q. How many of them did you get up before you fell? A. We put them all up. That was the last one, where I fell. When I got through holding up there, and Baker got that nailed, I stepped backwards, off the horse, and when I stepped on the board there it broke right through. I stepped off the horse on the board which broke when Alec got through nailing the rafter. After I fell I seen the board that broke was an old board. I had not noticed it before. All the other boards were new. I did not notice any old board but that one which broke with me. It was eight feet long. After I fell some one called my attention to it. The two ends hung by a nail, and I heard some one say, ‘Take them down, or they will fall on him,’ and of course I paid some attention to it. It broke right in the middle. This old board that broke came from the old shed that we tore down there. Tom Seevers told me to tear down the old shed to make room for materials for the new building, which I did, and laid the old boards in a pile. The shed we tore down was old, and it had the appearance of being an old building. I cannot say that the particular board which broke was rotten, only it was knotty,--great knots running from the center of the board out both ways, where it broke. It was cross-grained. It was knotty,--it was full of knots. There was a knot in the center. Question. After it broke you could see it was knotty and cross-grained? Answer. Yes. I could see that. I did not know how I fell, I went down so sudden. I found myself lying on my back. When I struck I could not move. My brother, Alec Baker, and Harry Seevers all came to see what was the matter, and raised me up, and I was carried home. I suffered great pain from the injuries.” The testimony of the plaintiff has strong corroboration throughout, and, in many particulars, is without dispute.

From this statement of the facts and the testimony, with the issues, we may have in view the necessary directions to be given to the jury, and judge of their merits or demerits under the complaints made. We must concede the proposition of law, by appellants, that they had...