International Harvester Co. v. Sartain
| Decision Date | 21 May 1948 |
| Citation | 222 S.W.2d 854 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. et al. v. SARTAIN. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
A. Longstreet Heiskell (of Chandler, Shepherd, Heiskell & Williams), of Memphis, for International Harvester.
Cooper Turner, Jr., and Chas. L. Neely, both of Memphis, for Virginia Engineering Co.
Evans, Exby, Moriarity & Creson, of Memphis, for Ira Sartain.
This is an appeal in the nature of a writ of error from a jury verdict and judgment.
Suit was brought by Ira Sartain against the defendants, International Harvester Company, Virginia Engineering Company and Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division of the City of Memphis for personal injuries arising out of contact with a high voltage electric wire.
There was a verdict for $60,000 against the first two named defendants and a verdict of not guilty in favor of the third named defendant.
The trial judge suggested a remittitur of $20,000, which was accepted under protest and Ira Sartain has appealed therefrom seeking a restoration to the original amount.
There is no dispute about the ultimate material facts.
International, as the first plaintiff-in-error will be referred to, was procuring the erection of a large factory on a tract of about 152 acres located a few miles north of Memphis and between Highway 51 and the Mississippi River just west of the suburb of Frayser.
There was, of course, an overall plan of the entire permanent lay-out, but International, so far as appears from the evidence, executed none of the work itself but had all of it done by independent contractors, but it did reserve the right to do work as it might elect.
Virginia, as the second plaintiff-in-error will be designated, was the largest contractor and is referred to in its contract as the "principal contractor", but, while it had numerous sub-contractors, there were in fact other independent contractors working on the premises simultaneously with Virginia who had no connection with Virginia but were direct independent contractors with International.
All these contracts provided that each contractor should so manage as that all work should be carried on harmoniously and concurrently among themselves.
The structure, on which Sartain was working as a steel construction worker when injured, was one of twelve or more single story steel buildings in a row, some of which were contiguous and some adjacent to one another.
The contract for the fabrication and construction of these buildings was direct from International to Gage Structural Steel Company and the work was being done by its sub-contractor, Beasley; so that Gage was the remote and Beasley the immediate employer of Sartain. Virginia had no connection with his employment, nor with the Gage contract in any manner and Gage had no need for and was not using the electricity nor tools provided by Virginia.
With this preliminary a fair statement of the contracts and the facts so far as here pertinent is taken from the brief of International, with the insertion in paragraph 4 of the words "owner and" just preceding "all contractors", and with the exception of its No. 8, which will be later discussed.
The space encompassed within any four columns of these structures is called a "bay" so that each building is composed of a row of bays each 22 feet between any two columns on the same side. Resting on top of the columns are the roof structures pointing up to the apex. In bringing up these very flexible rods and working them into the diagonal position it is usual and necessary for one worker standing at the base of the roof structure to pay the lower end of the rod back over the side of the building, then pay the other end carefully back to another worker holding the upper end and climbing up the roof truss to the apex. This operation requires concentrated attention and care so as not to throw the climber off balance and cause him to fall from the truss to the ground.
At the time of the accident Sartain and Taylor were standing in a gutter 20 inches wide on the south side of building No. 4. They had begun work toward the east end and had worked toward the west and were in the act of putting in the last tie rod. Sartain was near the southwest corner of the building facing east and Taylor was about 20 feet east of him facing west. As Sartain was handling his end of the rod over the side and the gutter, the rod came in contact with the high voltage power line which was about 3 feet from the corner of the gutter and about six inches lower.
Taylor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Amcon Intern., Inc.
...208 S.W.2d 355 (1947); Yellow Bus Line v. Brenner, 31 Tenn.App. 209, 230, 213 S.W.2d 626 (1948); International Harvester Co., et al. v. Sartain, 32 Tenn.App. 425, 466, 222 S.W.2d 854 (1949); Olson v. Sharpe, 36 Tenn.App. 557, 259 S.W.2d 867 (1953); Monday v. Millsaps, 37 Tenn.App. 371, 412,......
-
McGarry v. United States
...and given application by the Tennessee courts. Davis v. Cam-Wyman Lumber Co., 126 Tenn. 576, 150 S.W. 545; International Harvester Co. v. Sartain, 32 Tenn.App. 425, 222 S. W.2d 854, certiorari denied by Supreme Court, March 11, "Electricity has traditionally been considered extremely danger......
-
Pasquale v. Ohio Power Co.
...Co-op., 788 S.W.2d 506 (Mo.1990); Vannoy v. City of Warren, 15 Mich.App. 158, 166 N.W.2d 486 (1968); International Harvester Co. v. Sartain, 32 Tenn.App. 425, 222 S.W.2d 854 (1948).21 Syllabus Point 3 of Sanders states:"Syllabus No. 2, Chenoweth v. Settle Engineers, 151 W.Va. 830, 156 S.E.2......
-
Rowley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
...147 N.W.2d 824, 834 (1967); Vannoy v. City of Warren, 15 Mich.App. 158, 166 N.W.2d 486, 489 (1968); International Harvester Co. v. Sartain, 32 Tenn.App. 425, 222 S.W.2d 854, 868 (1948). But the majority of jurisdictions hold that an employer's vicarious liability does not extend to employee......