McCready v. Southern Pac. Co., No. 5270.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit |
Citation | 26 F.2d 569 |
Parties | McCREADY v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. |
Docket Number | No. 5270. |
Decision Date | 02 July 1928 |
26 F.2d 569 (1928)
McCREADY
v.
SOUTHERN PAC. CO.
No. 5270.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 28, 1928.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1928.
Bertrand J. Wellman, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
W. I. Gilbert, of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries, and, from a judgment of involuntary nonsuit at the close of his case, he appeals.
At the time of his injury, he was employed as a carpenter by the C. A. Fellows Construction Company in the erection of a new shop building at Los Angeles for the defendant railroad company; the construction company being an independent contractor. The building was to be 75 feet wide and 480 feet long, and, though to be a single rectangular structure when finished, it was constructed in two units. The walls were of brick, with large window spaces. About 25 feet above the floor, and 6 or 8 feet from each side wall was an I-beam extending the full length of the building. These beams carried rails upon which traveled a heavy crane beam extending from one I-beam to the other; the crane being designed for the moving of ponderous materials and machinery, the power therefor being electrically supplied.
At the time of the accident, the westerly half of the structure was finished, and had been turned over to the railroad company. The easterly half was nearing completion, but considerable work still remained to be done. The plaintiff and other carpenters were, under their employers' directions, engaged in removing interior scaffolding which had been erected along the side walls of the unfinished unit for the use of bricklayers
Desiring to remove the scaffolding, the contractor's foreman notified representatives of the defendant and sought to have the current temporarily cut off, but his requests were refused; and finally, selecting plaintiff and others of the more experienced workmen, he assigned to them the task of taking down the scaffolding, at the same time giving them appropriate warnings that they should exercise care to avoid injury from the wires. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGarry v. United States, Civ. No. LV-1504
...look at the law of Nevada. It is clear that McGarry, as the employee of REECo, was an invitee of the AEC. McCready v. Southern Pac. Co., 26 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1928), and Fuchs v. Mapes, 74 Nev. 366, 332 P.2d 1002. Generally, the owner of real property owes an invitee the duty of ordinary ca......
-
Swift & Co. v. Schuster, No. 4276.
...think, was, under the undisputed proof, a question for the jury, and not for the court." See also McCready v. Southern Pac. Co., 9 Cir., 26 F. 2d 569 and 9 Cir., 47 F.2d Applying these principles to the case in hand, we conclude that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was p......
-
Troutman v. International Harvester Co., No. 1376.
...words, to furnish the employees a reasonably safe place in which to perform their work. McCready v. Southern Pacific Company, 9 Cir., 26 F.2d 569. Defendants do not contend seriously upon their motion that there was not sufficient evidence on the part of the plaintiff to justify a submissio......
-
McGarry v. United States, Civ. No. LV-1504
...look at the law of Nevada. It is clear that McGarry, as the employee of REECo, was an invitee of the AEC. McCready v. Southern Pac. Co., 26 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1928), and Fuchs v. Mapes, 74 Nev. 366, 332 P.2d 1002. Generally, the owner of real property owes an invitee the duty of ordinary ca......
-
Swift & Co. v. Schuster, No. 4276.
...think, was, under the undisputed proof, a question for the jury, and not for the court." See also McCready v. Southern Pac. Co., 9 Cir., 26 F. 2d 569 and 9 Cir., 47 F.2d Applying these principles to the case in hand, we conclude that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was p......
-
Troutman v. International Harvester Co., No. 1376.
...words, to furnish the employees a reasonably safe place in which to perform their work. McCready v. Southern Pacific Company, 9 Cir., 26 F.2d 569. Defendants do not contend seriously upon their motion that there was not sufficient evidence on the part of the plaintiff to justify a submissio......