Lambert v. Missisquoi Pulp Co.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1900
• Citation: 47 A. 1085,72 Vt. 278
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: LAMBERT v. MISSISQUOI PULP CO.

47 A. 1085

72 Vt. 278

LAMBERT

v. MISSISQUOI PULP CO.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Franklin.

May 24, 1900.

Exceptions from Franklin county court; Rowell, Judge.

Action by Mitchell Lambert against the Missisquoi Pulp Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions. Reversed.

The action was brought to recover of the defendants for an injury sustained by the plaintiff while in their employ by reason of their alleged negligence in not providing for him a safe staging on which to work, in connection with others, in the construction of a certain mill. That part of the charge of the court set out in the bill of exceptions was as follows: "For the purposes of this trial I instruct you that it was the duty of the defendants to supply a reasonably safe staging for the plaintiff to do this work upon; and if they were at fault in that regard, and he was injured by reason thereof, he himself not being in legal fault that contributed to his injury, then he is entitled to recover. I say it was the duty of the defendants to supply such a staging. It is conceded by the defendants that the staging was not of that character; that it was not suitable and safe for the purpose of putting those timbers in place upon the wall. Yet, if they were in legal fault in this regard, the plaintiff cannot recover if his negligence contributed in any degree to the happening of the accident that produced the injury." The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, and found specially that the defendants' foreman, one Whitney, was not a competent and suitable man for foreman, and that the defendants did not exercise the care and prudence of a careful and prudent man in putting him into that position. They also found specially that the defendants furnished material suitable in quality and quantity for the erection of a suitable staging in connection with the work of constructing the mill. The questions discussed in the opinion arose upon the pro forma overruling of a motion by the defendants to have a verdict directed in their favor upon the denial by the court of certain requests to charge and upon the charge as given.

Argued before ROSS, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, START, and THOMPSON, JJ.

D. W. Steele and Farrington & Post, for plaintiff. C. G. Austin, for defendant.

MUNSON, J. The plaintiff, a carpenter of long experience, was employed by the de> fendants to work in the construction of their mill, and was placed under the superintendency of one Whitney as foreman. He was injured by the breaking down of one section of a long staging built before he came upon the Job by the force of workmen which he joined. This structure was insufficient in that the crosspieces upon which the planks rested were fastened to the standards with nails of insufficient size, left with their heads a quarter of an inch or more from the wood. A few hours before receiving his injury the plaintiff was sent to repair the staging where it had been broken by the falling of a man upon it from a height of several feet, and found that the break was caused by the pulling off of a crosspiece, and renailed the piece. His own injury resulted from the pulling off of a crosspiece about 16 feet from the place so repaired. This occurred while the plaintiff and three others were carrying a stick of timber along the staging. Before going upon it with the timber, the plaintiff asked Whitney if the staging was safe to work on, and Whitney replied that it was all right if not loaded down with timbers, and told the plaintiff to go on with his work, and not ask so many questions. The plaintiff testified that he made this inquiry because he thought the staging looked rather shabby and uneven. At the close of. the evidence the defendants moved that a verdict be directed in their favor on the ground that the plaintiff had not made out a case entitling him to recover, which motion the court overruled pro forma. This saved the question whether the plaintiff, upon his own...