Heckman v. Mackey
| Decision Date | 22 June 1888 |
| Citation | 35 F. 353 |
| Parties | HECKMAN v. MACKEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Seth S Terry, for plaintiff.
James Stikeman, for defendant.
This is an action at law. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that he was a carpenter, and that while at work, with others for the defendant, under direction of a foreman, he put up a staging at the gable of a house which they were finishing about 28 feet from the ground, and nailed the two planks which constituted the floor of the staging firmly to the brackets, so that he could go about it, and beyond the brackets, as would be necessary to do the work which was engaged about, with safety; that, while he was absent from the staging, the foreman directed another workman to take one of those planks away to use elsewhere, which was done, and another put in its place, without being nailed or otherwise fastened, and without the knowledge of the plaintiff that any change had been made; that he returned to his work on the staging, and, relying upon the plank being fastened as he had left it, stepped out on it beyond the bracket, so that his weight tipped it down, and it let him fall to the ground whereby he was seriously injured. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the foreman gave no directions for removing the plank. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that, if he furnished sufficient materials to make a safe staging, he discharged his full duty to the plaintiff, and that the defendant was not responsible to the plaintiff for any act of his fellow-servant in removing the plank, and putting another there without nailing it. The court did not charge the jury as so requested, but did charge that the foreman represented the defendant about the matters which he placed in charge of the foreman; and that if the foreman directed the nailed plank to be taken away, without having the one that replaced it nailed, or notifying the plaintiff that the change had been made, the defendant would be responsible for the consequences to the same extent as if he had been there, and done the same himself; and that the important questions were whether the foreman did this, and whether he failed to exercise the care of a prudent man doing it, and that failure led the plaintiff to step upon the plank, as he did, without failure to exercise due care on his own part. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant now moves...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
... ... condition was the cause of the injury. [Bane v ... Irwin, 172 Mo. 306, 316, 317, 72 S.W. 522.] The ... following is the syllabus in Heckman v. Mackey, 35 ... "Plaintiff ... while in the employ of defendant, under direction of a ... foreman, put up a staging about ... ...
-
Beresford v. American Coal Co.
...see Island Coal Co. v. Swaggerty, 159 Ind. 665 (65 N.E. 1026); Swift v. Bleise, 63 Neb. 739 (89 N.W. 310, 57 L.R.A. 147); Heckman v. Mackey (C. C.), 35 F. 353; Ill. Co. v. McFadden, 196 Ill. 344 (63 N.E. 671, 89 Am. St. Rep. 319); C. & N.W. R. R. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205; Dayharsh v. R. R.......
-
Oelschlegel v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
...G.E. Co., supra; Northern P.C. Co. v. Richmond, supra; Arkerson v. Dennison, 117 Mass. 407; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 N.Y. 547; Heckman v. Mackey, 35 F. 353; Indianapolis v. Morgenstern, 106 Ill. 216. A master owes the duty to his servant to furnish adequate and suitable tools, implements an......
- Browning v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.