Hughes v. Schnavel

• Decision Date: 14 November 1904
• Citation: 78 P. 623,20 Colo.App. 306
• Parties: HUGHES et al. v. SCHNAVEL.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

78 P. 623

20 Colo.App. 306

HUGHES et al. v. SCHNAVEL.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

November 14, 1904

Appeal from District Court, Arapahoe County.

Action by Frank Schnavel against Arthur Hughes and another. A judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

George W. Taylor, for appellants.

GUNTER J.

Appellee sued appellants on account of personal injuries sustained by him through the alleged negligence of appellants, and recovered a verdict in the sum of $525. The trial court without assigning any reason for its action in so doing, so far as the record discloses, required appellee, as its condition for overruling a motion of appellants for a new trial, to enter a remittitur for $275, and, on his doing so entered judgment for appellee for the amount of $250. From such judgment is this appeal.

The facts were: Appellants were constructing, of iron plates, a large water tank at Goldfield, this state. They employed appellee, a boiler maker of 6 years' experience as such and 28 years of age, to work as a riveter in the erection of the tank. Appellee had had experience in riveting, knowledge of which is within the trade of a boiler maker. A scaffold was erected by appellants for use in riveting the tank. The scaffold was a simple appliance, built at the tank by two men in about one hour. It was made thus: A platform of such lumber as is ordinarily used for such purposes, 3 feet 6 inches in width by about 4 feet in length was built upon scantlings bolted at right angles to the lower ends of two pieces of timber 7 feet in length, 2 inches in thickness, and 6 inches in width. A second platform similarly constructed, and secured to uprights, was also made. These platforms were connected by iron hangers made in the form of ordinary shears, to which hangers the upper ends of the uprights sustaining the platforms were bolted. The scaffold was then suspended by the hangers resting on the upper edge of the tank. Appellee saw the scaffold constructed, and aided in placing it on the tank--one platform of the scaffold hung on the inside of the tank, the other on the outside. Appellee and another workman occupied the inside platform and hammered the rivets, while a third workman on the outer platform held a hammer to the heads of the rivets. It became necessary to move the scaffold around the edge of the tank as the riveting progressed. This shifting of the platform was done by appellee and his fellow workmen. Appellee and his two fellow laborers worked upon the scaffold as originally constructed about one week. At times only one riveter could work on appellee's side. At such times the other stood by unengaged. Appellee had ample opportunity to inspect the materials of which the scaffold was constructed, and the manner of its construction, and to judge of its weight. The part of the upright bolted to the hanger, which subsequently split and caused the fall of the scaffold, was immediately before him, and in plain view. When the work had progressed to the riveting of the angle iron, which is around the upper edge of the tank, second-story platforms were built on the inner and outer sides of the scaffold. This was for the purpose of enabling the workmen to reach the rivets on the angle iron. Appellee and the workmen with him on the platforms aided in building the second-story additions to the scaffold. Appellee must have assisted in handling the materials which went into the platforms, and, from common knowledge, knew approximately their weight. He more than once assisted in moving and lifting the scaffold in its progress around the angle iron. Until the hangers rested on the angle iron, little difficulty was experienced in moving the scaffold, which was done by the workmen sitting...