Jennings v. Iron Bay Co.

• Decision Date: 21 August 1891
• Citation: 47 Minn. 111
• Parties: WILLIAM JENNINGS <I>vs.</I> IRON BAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

47 Minn. 111

WILLIAM JENNINGSvs.

IRON BAY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

August 21, 1891.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for St. Louis county, where the action was tried before Mills, J., a verdict of $2,500 rendered for plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial denied.

Kitchel, Cohen & Shaw, for appellant.

McGindley & Cotton, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

This was an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff, a carpenter by trade, in falling from a scaffolding. He had been engaged for some time with other workmen in the erection and completion of buildings designed for use in defendant's manufacturing business, and about which the usual scaffolds had been constructed by these workmen, although it appears from the testimony that the plaintiff did not assist in constructing the one from which he fell. This was on the inside of the blacksmith shop, and had been erected to facilitate the putting-up of fixtures and machinery. The materials for the scaffold were ample in quantity and of good quality, and it had been built in the usual manner, uprights being placed at intervals along the wall, and directly opposite, 12 feet distant into the room, similar uprights were placed with cross-pieces running from one to the other, on which planks were laid for walks or floors, two or three feet in width near the wall, and about the same at the inner edge of the frame, the space between being uncovered, except as planks might be thrown across to walk on. As is the universal custom, none of these planks were fastened, but were laid loosely, that they might be easily moved and shifted from place to place on the scaffold. All of the planks used for walks or floors were of sufficient length to reach from one cross-piece to another, and to lap all that was required for safety.

The plaintiff was directed to go on this scaffold, and suspend the cross-piece between the first and second sections, by means of a hanger, to a beam above, and at a point about two feet from the wall, in order that the upright to which the cross-piece was fastened might be removed out of the way of certain machinery. He stood on two planks, one lying on the other, at the south end of the second section, and securely nailed the hanger to the beam above. He then stooped, and, striking towards himself, drove a nail partly through the hanger, as it rested against the southerly surface of the cross-piece beneath. The effect of this must have been to spring the cross-piece, more or less, out from under the ends of the plank in the first section. The ends of the plank on which plaintiff stood overlapped the ends of one of the planks in that section, so that when in an upright position the extent or manner of its bearing upon the cross-piece was concealed from his observation. But when coming upon the scaffolding, or when stooping to drive the nails, the plaintiff, had he looked, could have seen the exact condition of things, for there was nothing to prevent, and it was easily discoverable; or, had he glanced at the other end of the plank, he would have seen that it projected to the north much further than it should when in proper position. To finish...