Leet v. Block
| Decision Date | 13 October 1914 |
| Docket Number | 22,382 |
| Citation | 106 N.E. 373,182 Ind. 271 |
| Parties | Leet, Administratrix, v. Block et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Superior Court of Marion County (85,043); Joseph Collier Judge.
Action by Anna Leet, as administratrix of the estate of Charles F Leet, deceased, against William H. Block and others. From the judgment rendered, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
H. N Spaan, Ralph M. Spaan and George W. Curtis, for appellant.
Elam, Fesler & Elam, for appellees.
Action for damages for the death of Charles F. Leet, against appellees William H. Block and Bedford Stone and Construction Company, and also against John Armond. The complaint alleges that Block was the owner of certain real estate in Indianapolis, and, in 1911 constructed a business block thereon; that said Block had complete and exclusive control of the construction of the building, and employed the defendants Bedford Stone and Construction Company and John Armond, to do certain parts of the work under contracts the terms of which are unknown to plaintiff; that plaintiff's decedent was employed by defendants on June 24, 1911, while the construction work was unfinished, to clean certain stone work on the building, which required him to work on a scaffold suspended by ropes; that one of the ropes broke causing the fall of the scaffold from the seventh story of the building and resulting in injuries which caused decedent's death; that the injury was caused by a defective rope, which was negligently provided by defendants, to support the scaffold. There was a verdict for plaintiff, accompanied with answers to interrogatories. Appellees, Block and Bedford company, each filed a motion for judgment non obstante, and for a new trial. Each motion for a new trial was overruled, but those for judgment on the answers to interrogatories were sustained and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against the defendant Armond and in favor of Block and the Bedford company. Appellant assigns as error the sustaining of the motions for judgment on the answers to interrogatories. Appellees each assign as cross error the overruling of the motion for a new trial.
When the accident occurred there was in effect the act of March 6, 1911, relating to dangerous occupations. Acts 1911 p. 597, § 3862a Burns 1914. Section 1 of the act provides that every employer or person managing or conducting any work of the character mentioned in the act, is, for the purposes thereof, conducting a dangerous occupation at the time of such occurrence. Section 4 of the act (§ 3862d Burns 1914) provides that "It is hereby made the duty of all owners, contractors, sub-contractors, * * * engaged in the * * * construction * * * of any building * * * to see and require that all * * * rope * * * appliances * * * contrivances * * * are carefully selected, inspected and tested, so as to detect and exclude defects and dangerous conditions, and that all scaffolding * * * and all contrivances used are amply, adequately and properly constructed * * *; and generally, it shall be the duty of all owners * * * contractors, sub-contractors and all other persons having charge of or responsible for, any work * * * involving risk or danger to employes * * * to use every device, care and precaution which it is practicable * * * to use for the protection and safety of life, limb and health * * * without regard to additional cost * * * the first concern being safety to life, limb and health." (Italics ours.) Section 5 (§ 3862e Burns 1914) makes it a misdemeanor to violate any provision of the act.
Appellee Block let the construction of the building to appellee Bedford Stone and Construction Company, but the terms of the contract are not set forth in the answers to interrogatories. The jury found specially that defendant Armond made a contract with the Bedford company for the cleaning of certain parts of the building, under which Armond was to furnish his own labor and material and do the cleaning for a lump sum of money; that Armond employed decedent to work at the cleaning and paid his wages for his work; that Block was "indirectly" a party to the contract between the Bedford company and Armond. Counsel for appellees rely on the defense that the accident was caused by the negligence of Armond, an independent contractor. Marion Shoe Co v. Eppley (1914), 181 Ind. 219, 104 N.E. 65. Appellant's counsel contend that the said act of 1911 renders such doctrine unavailable to appellees. In instructing the jury the trial court adopted appellant's theory and, by instructions Nos. 10 and 13, informed the jury that if Block let...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College
... ... 179; Wiese v. Remme, 140 Mo. 289, ... 41 S.W. 797; Litts v. Risley Lumber Co., 224 N.Y ... 321, 120 N.E. 730, 19 A.L.R. 1147; Leet v. Block, ... 182 Ind. 271, 106 N.E. 373, 20 A.L.R. 654; Annotation, 19 ... A.L.R. 243, 1210; Murray's Case, supra; Mattocks v ... Emerson Drug ... ...
-
Walters v. Kellam and Foley
...to assure that the construction project conforms to the plans and specifications, Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Skeel, supra; Leet v. Block (1914), 182 Ind. 271, 106 N.E. 373; Wyler v. Lilly Varnish Co. (1969), 146 Ind.App. 91, 252 N.E.2d 824, rehearing denied (1970), 146 Ind.App. 91, 255 N.E.2d By r......
-
Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Const. Co., MAHONY-TROAST
...justifying the construction that the Legislature intended to impose the duty upon the general contractor. Leet v. Block, 182 Ind. 271, 106 N.E. 373, 20 A.L.R. 654 (Sup.Ct. 1914); Gibbons v. Chapin & Gore, 147 Ill.App. 575 (1st Dist. 1909); Beasley v. Bond, 173 Okla. 355, 48 P.2d 299 (Sup.Ct......
-
Thill v. Modern Erecting Co.
...this statute, of course, does not apply to the Shiely Company, to Jesco, Inc. or to the Ashbach Company.'9 E.g., Leet v. Block, 182 Ind. 271, 106 N.E. 373, 20 A.L.R. 654; Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Const. Co., 18 N.J.Super. 380, 87 A.2d 349.10 See, e.g., Alsaker v. DeGraff Lumber Co., 234 M......