Manning v. Manchester Mills
| Decision Date | 15 March 1901 |
| Citation | 49 A. 91,70 N.H. 582 |
| Parties | MANNING v. MANCHESTER MILLS. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Hillsboro county.
Action by Charles Manning against Manchester Mills. Prom a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff brings exceptions. Overruled.
Case, for negligence. The plaintiff was a hod carrier, employed by the defendants upon a mill which was being built a story higher. His evidence tended to prove the following facts: There was an opening in the flat roof of the mill, through which a ladder had been erected for the use of the workmen. The ladder was secured at the top by cleats of wood, one on either side, nailed to the roof, and converging so that the ends tended to hold the ladder in place. The parts of the cleats furthest from the ladder were nailed into the tar and gravel roof, and the parts next the ladder into the boarding where the tar and gravel had been removed. Each cleat was secured by two nails, 2 or 2 1/2 Inches in length. The plaintiff carried his hod upon his shoulder, and when he reached the level of the roof attempted to step off to the right. When he did so, the cleat upon that side was turned by the pressure of the ladder, causing him to fall, and sustain the injuries complained of. The ladder and cleats were not defective, and were proper for the purposes for which they were used, and the crew had access to nails with which to fasten the cleats to the roof. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants moved for a nonsuit. The court took the matter under consideration, and directed the defendants to proceed. Before they had rested, the court directed a verdict for them, and the plaintiff excepted. He also excepted that a verdict was directed at this stage of the case.
Burnham, Brown & Warren and Robert L. Manning, for plaintiff.
Taggart & Bingham, for defendants.
Upon the question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence, the parties substantially agree as to the law, and the controversy is as to whether there was anything in the evidence which would have warranted a finding that the defendants failed to furnish to the plaintiff and his fellow servants sufficient tools and appliances with which to carry on the work they were set to do. If the defendants performed this duty, they are not liable for an accident which was caused by the failure of the plaintiff's fellow workmen to make a proper use of what was furnished. McGinty v. Reservoir Co., 155 Mass. 183, 29 N. E. 510; McCampbell v. Steamship Co., 144 N. Y. 552, 39 N. E. 637; Nash v. Steel Co., 62 N. H. 406.
Two positions are taken in the plaintiff's brief. He says, first, that the roof was not a suitable one to fasten the cleats to unless long nails were used, and that this was a defect in the condition of the premises which contributed to cause the accident. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
... ... New York & C. Mail S. S ... Co. (1899), 28 Misc. 238, 58 N.Y.S. 1074; ... Manning v. Manchester Mills ... (1900), 70 N.H. 582, 49 A. 9; Warszawski v ... McWilliams ... ...
-
McLaine v. Head &, Dowst Co.
...personal duty of the master to see to it that such places are safe. His duty ends with the supply of suitable materials. Manning v. Mills, 70 N. H. 582, 49 Atl. 91. Having provided a safe place, the master is not liable upon the ground of that obligation if the place is made unsafe by the n......
-
Hook v. Consolidation Coal Co.
...Smith v. Boston & M. R. R., 73 N. H. 325, 327, 61 A. 359; Hill v. Boston & M. R. R., 72 N. H. 518, 519, 57 A. 924; Manning v. Manchester Mills, 70 N. H. 582, 584, 49 A. 91. "If a rule would have protected the servant, if observed, his injury may be due either to the want of the rule, neglig......
-
Jutras v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.
...of an employer who had furnished safe materials and made proper rules. Smith v. Railroad, 73 N. H. 325, 61 A. 359; Manning v. Manchester Mills, 70 N. H. 582, 49 A. 91. The frames in the spinning room where the accident happened were set up in rows of sixteen, extending from east to west acr......