McCollin v. James Black Masonry & Construction Co.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1912
• Citation: 151 S.W. 973,247 Mo. 174
• Parties: McCOLLIN v. JAMES BLACK MASONRY & CONSTRUCTION CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

151 S.W. 973

247 Mo. 174

McCOLLIN v. JAMES BLACK MASONRY & CONSTRUCTION CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 30, 1912.

Rehearing Denied December 24, 1912.

MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 149)—INJURY TO SERVANT—NEGLIGENCE—"RIGGING."

The foreman in charge of the construction of a building directed employés who had just raised a column from the first floor to the second to bring to the first floor all the rigging, consisting of ropes and blocks and chains. The rigging hung above a rope supporting a scaffold in use. The employés not only removed the rigging, but untied the rope, causing the scaffold to fall, injuring an employé working thereon. Held, that the foreman was not guilty of actionable negligence in giving the order, since the word "rigging," when applied to the handling of heavy loads of timber, metal, or stone, means the tackle, lines, and fastenings with which the work is accomplished, and the order did not refer to the rope supporting the scaffold.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; C. C. Allen, Judge.

Action by John E. McCollin against the James Black Masonry & Construction Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Henry A. Baker and Campbell Allison, both of St. Louis, for appellant. Jones, Jones, Hocker & Davis, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BROWN, C.

The petition states that the defendant is a Missouri corporation engaged in the general contracting business, and one Anton Pape was its foreman; that the plaintiff is a bridge and structural iron worker, and was on December 19, 1905, employed by defendant in that capacity in erecting a building in St. Louis under the direction of said Pape as foreman. The petition then proceeds as follows: "That while plaintiff was at work as aforesaid, on said day, he, in obedience to the order of said foreman, was on a plank scaffold, suspended below the second floor of said building, one end of which plank scaffold was resting on and supported by an X brace, and the other end was resting on and suspended by a rope, which rope was passed through a girder above the said plank scaffold and was wound three times around a floor beam or girder of the second floor, and then securely tied by two "half-hitches" to a wire cable just above the said second floor; that while plaintiff was thus on said plank scaffold and at work as aforesaid, without any knowledge, fault, or negligence on plaintiff's part, said foreman, Anton Pape, although he well knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care might have known, that plaintiff was at work on said scaffold, as aforesaid, carelessly and negligently ordered and directed two of the employés of the defendant then at work on the said building under the direction of the said Pape, to take up the rigging (which rigging included the said rope supporting the plank scaffold on which the plaintiff sat as aforesaid), thereby ordering and directing the said workmen to take up and remove the said rope supporting the plank scaffold on which the plaintiff sat, as aforesaid, and that the said workmen, in obedience to the said order and direction, and in execution thereof, untied the said rope tied to the wire cable as aforesaid, and uncoiled the same, or permitted it to uncoil, from around the said girder, whereby the end of said scaffold which was being supported by said rope, as aforesaid, suddenly and without warning of any kind to plaintiff, was permitted and caused to drop, in consequence of which said negligence, plaintiff fell to the floor below." He then proceeds to describe his injuries, and asks $10,000 for damages. The answer contains a general denial.

The plaintiff proved that at the time of the accident he was engaged with others under the direction of Mr. Pape, in the work of reconstructing a building in St. Louis by substituting a heavy steel girder, three feet in depth, to support the second floor, in place of a wooden floor beam in use for that purpose, so that all supports might be removed and the entire room left in the clear. The supports had already been removed from beneath the wooden beam, and it was supported at the end near...