Jenkins v. Banks
| Decision Date | 14 April 1952 |
| Citation | 87 A.2d 908,147 Me. 438 |
| Parties | JENKINS v. BANKS |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Raymond S. Oakes, Portland, for plaintiff.
Robinson, Richardson & Leddy, Robert J. Milliken, Portland, for defendant.
Before MURCHIE, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, MERRILL, NULTY and WILLIAMSON, JJ.
On exceptions. This case is before us on exceptions by the plaintiff to the admission of certain testimony in the course of the trial and to the direction of a verdict for the defendant. The action is brought by the plaintiff, Ralph E. Jenkins, against the defendant, Robert S. Banks, to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff as the result of a fall caused by the collapse of a staging upon which he was at work.
The defendant was in the roofing business, so-called, and took contracts to cover side walls and roofs with asbestos shingles. The plaintiff was working for him as an applicator of such shingles. At the time he was injured he was engaged with two other men in laying shingles on a building which the defendant had contracted to cover. The plaintiff claims that the relationship existing between the defendant and himself was that of master and servant. The defendant claims that the plaintiff and those working with him were independent contractors.
The negligence charged against the defendant is that he furnished to the plaintiff and those working with him a defective wall bracket with which to construct the staging upon which the plaintiff was at work, and the collapse of which caused the injuries to the plaintiff; and that the defendant either knew or, by the exercise of due care on his part, should have known of the defective condition of the bracket.
The defendant furnished the brackets and planks of which the staging was constructed to the plaintiff and his associates for the prosecution of the particular job on which they were engaged at the time the plaintiff was injured. If the relationship was that of master and servant, the defendant's duties to furnish instrumentalities and with respect to those furnished are those imposed upon him by such relationship.
If the plaintiff was an independent contractor, although the relationship of contractee and independent contractor does not in and of itself cast upon the contractee a duty to furnish appliances, he may assume that duty by his contract. If upon the evidence in this case the jury should find that the relationship between the parties was that of independent contractor and contractee, there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify a finding by the jury that the defendant by the contract undertook to furnish the brackets and planks for the construction of the staging which collapsed.
Where the contractee undertakes to provide any of the instrumentalities with which the work is to be carried on, he owes to the contractor and the latter's employees the duty of exercising reasonable care with respect thereto. 27 Am.Jur. page 509, § 30. See 44 A.L.R. 891, note.
If the relationship is that of master and servant, it is the duty of the master to use reasonably care to furnish his servants reasonably safe appliances with which to work and to use reasonable care to inspect such appliances in order to discover and remedy defects. The servant, though he is bound to use his senses to see defects which are obvious, is not required to examine appliances to discover those not obvious; and he may rely on the presumption that his employer has performed his duty with reference to such inspection. Boober v. Bicknell, 135 Me. 153, 154, 191 A. 275.
If the relationship is that of contractee and independent contractor, and if as a part of the contract the contractee undertakes to furnish the contractor with appliances with which to do the work he, because of the contract, and as an implied obligation imposed thereby, owes the contractor the duty to furnish reasonably safe appliances and to use reasonable care to inspect such appliances prior to furnishing them to the contractor in order to discover and remedy defects. In other words the contractee has a duty of initial inspection. The contractor, though he is bound to...
To continue reading
Request your trial