Larsen v. United Gas Imp Co.
| Decision Date | 21 July 1910 |
| Docket Number | 810. |
| Parties | LARSEN v. UNITED GAS IMPROVEMENT CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
W. W Mentzinger, Jr., and John McClintock, Jr., for plaintiff.
R Stuart Smith and Morgan, Lewis & Bockins, for defendant.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages for the death of her husband, who was killed in the falling of a building at the northeast corner of Eleventh and Market streets, Philadelphia, on the 15th day of July, 1909. Additions, alterations, and improvements were being made to this building, which required the tearing out of the two lower stories and almost the entire interior. During the progress of the work the upper stories were shored up, which made the work especially dangerous.
The defendant had entered into a contract with the Sax & Abbott Construction Company to do this work, in accordance with certain plans and specifications, which had been prepared by Rush & Lacey, architects. Sax & Abbott Company entered into a written contract with H. Sheeler & Co. for the furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, rigging, scaffolding, and appliances necessary to completely finish the work of shoring the walls, including the cutting of the walls and floors, and other cutting necessary to erect shores and needles, for which it was to receive a certain compensation. This work was the most important to be done, requiring knowledge and judgment in order that the place might be safe and secure against accident. The contractor and subcontractor started the work about the same time and continued from about the middle of May to the 15th day of July, when the building collapsed. There was evidence of negligence and imperfect work, and the falling of the building was no doubt the result of divided authority, bad management, and negligence. The husband of the plaintiff, who was employed by H. Sheeler & Co., the subcontractor, was killed by the falling of the building, and she alleges in her statement of claim that the defendant 'by its duly authorized agents, servants, and employes was engaged in making certain improvements, alterations, additions and repairs,' and that it 'negligently directed the work in such a manner that the entire structure became weakened and dangerous to workmen engaged in and about the making of said improvements, alterations, additions, and repairs, and failed to provide a reasonably safe place for the workmen to perform their duties, and failed to use due and proper care in the selection and retention of competent agents to conduct and direct the operation of said building. ' So that, as tersely stated by the defendant, the plaintiff, in order to recover in this action, must show that the negligence resulting in the accident was the negligence of an employe or agent of the defendant who was doing the work for the defendant.
There was sufficient evidence submitted to carry the case to the jury on the question of negligence on the part of the contractor and subcontractor in their manner of tearing out the old part of the building and in putting in the shoring which together resulted in making the place so obviously dangerous that William R. Hall, an experienced contractor and builder, three or four days before the collapse, observed that the work of shoring was done in a way to make it very dangerous, and the holes were cut in the partition wall from the foundation up in a very irregular manner. The building was then regarded by him in such a dangerous condition that he would not risk going to the fourth floor, but got out as quickly as he could. This contractor was doing some work on Market street, but for several days prior to the accident warned every one he knew not to stand near the building as it was liable to fall.
This evidence, together with that of the other witnesses, was, we think, sufficient on the question of the negligent performance of the work. The only other question then is as to whether or not the defendant was responsible for this negligence. There is no doubt that upon the contract alone made between the defendant and the Sax & Abbott Company the latter is an independent contractor, for whose negligence the defendant would not be liable.
The Sax & Abbott Company agreed to 'provide all material and perform all work for the alterations and additions to these properties,' in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by Rush & Lacey, architects, and it is further agreed that the work 'is to be done under the direction of said architects acting as counsel for the lessee, * * * and that the decision of the architects as to the true intent of the drawings and specifications shall be final. ' This supervision or direction reserved in the contracts, however, evidently is...
To continue reading
Request your trial