Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation v. Trehern
| Decision Date | 02 July 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11513.,11513. |
| Citation | 155 F.2d 202 |
| Parties | INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION v. TREHERN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
E. J. Ford, of Pascagoula, Miss., for appellant.
H. W. Gautier, of Pascagoula, Miss., for appellee.
Before HOLMES, McCORD, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Robert Trehern sued the Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation for personal injuries received as a result of the alleged negligence of the corporation in failing to maintain a reasonably safe place in which to work. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, and judgment was accordingly entered.
The defendant assigns as error: (1) That the facts did not show negligence on the part of the company; (2) That the plaintiff assumed the risk; and (3) That the court erred in failing to grant a motion for a mistrial because evidence that defendant carried liability insurance was brought into the trial and argument.
The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation was engaged in the construction of all-welded steel ships in its yards at Pascagoula, Mississippi. The plaintiff was employed by Ingalls as a shipfitter. It was his duty to bring the various parts of the ship into their proper place or alignment so that they might later be welded. In order to fit a certain steel girder into place, the plaintiff was required to work on a scaffold some six feet from the deck of the ship. While so engaged, he fell from the scaffold to the steel deck below. His back struck a small piece of timber that had been left lying on the deck which resulted in injuries to his back. His left foot was also injured in the fall.
The evidence shows that there was only one board ten inches wide in the scaffold and from which plaintiff fell; that company rules forbade shipfitters from constructing scaffolds, and further forbade anyone working on a scaffold which did not contain two boards; that such one-board scaffold was not a safe place in which to work; and that plaintiff requested a safer scaffold of his foreman but was instructed by such foreman to go ahead with the work as he "wanted the job hurried." At the time plaintiff was injured he was engaged in securing in place above his head a girder which weighed approximately one-half ton.
The plaintiff was working on a scaffold which was unsafe. Its unsafe condition was called to the attention of his foreman and was thereby brought home to the employer. It therefore becomes manifest that the question of the negligence of the employer was properly submitted to the jury. Mississippi Cottonseed Products Co. v. Harris, 187 Miss. 138, 192 So. 439; J. J. Newman Co. v. Cameron, 179 Miss. 217, 174 So. 571; Carey Reed Co. v. McDavid, 5 Cir., 120 F.2d 843.
The defendant's contention that the plaintiff assumed the risk incident to the work is wholly untenable. Such defense has been abolished by statute in Mississippi where negligence of the employer is shown. Sec. 1456, Mississippi Code 1942.
The defendant relies on the rule as laid down in the Mississippi case of Craig v. Craig: "But it has been long settled in this State * * * that the obligation of an employer to use reasonable care to furnish his employee a reasonably safe place in which to work has no application to the construction and repair of buildings, and the like, where the risks and dangers are those which arise during the course, or as a part of the progress, of the work and which relate directly to features which are, or become, integral portions of the building or structure itself, — and which do not involve hidden dangers against which the employee cannot protect himself and at the same time do his work." Craig v. Craig, 192 Miss. 271, 5 So.2d 673, 674, and cases there cited.
When we measure the evidence of this case to the rule just adverted to, we find that it has no application here, since there was no change in the place or work. Gow Co. v. Hunter, 175 Miss. 896, 168 So. 264, 266.
The weight of authority is to the effect that where liability insurance is carried it does not become a subject for jury consideration where such insurance carrier is not a party to the suit and is not connected with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Uhl v. Echols Transfer Company
...it must be hurting. 5 Hargett v. Rhoads, 37 Ala.App. 507, 70 So.2d 820; Hunt v. Ward, 262 Ala. 379, 79 So.2d 20; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Trehern, 5 Cir., 155 F.2d 202; Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co. v. Gambrell, 262 Ala. 290, 78 So.2d 619; to which may be added Fidelity Phenix Fire In......
-
Dicks v. Cleaver, 28734.
...Company v. Taylor, 5th Cir., 1967, 388 F.2d 586; Sun Oil Company v. Pierce, 5th Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 580; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation v. Trehern, 5th Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 202; Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Phillips 1966, N.D.Miss., 260 F.Supp. 11 Our extensive experience and that ......
-
People v. Ghazey, A120722 (Cal. App. 12/2/2009)
...recover "may have some bearing on the credibility" of the testimony of a "high-ranking employee"]; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation v. Trehern (5th Cir. 1946) 155 F.2d 202, 203-204 [no duty to declare mistrial after existence of defendant's liability insurance was disclosed during cross-exa......
-
SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. OF SHELBY, OHIO v. Phillips, EC6549.
...v. Helman, 233 Miss. 654, 103 So.2d 365, 368 (1958), and if admitted would constitute grounds for a mistrial. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Trehern, 155 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1946). Since the letter only substantiates the fact that defendants were invited to enter into settlement negotiations,......