Meyers v. Syndicate Heat & Power Co.
| Decision Date | 05 September 1907 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | MEYERS v. SYNDICATE HEAT & POWER CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.
Action by J. H. Meyers against the Syndicate Heat & Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed on condition.
Fogg & Fogg, for appellant.
Walter Christian and Chas. T. Peterson, for respondent.
This is an action for personal injuries. In his complaint the respondent, who was plaintiff below, alleged, in substance that he was employed by the appellant to work in and about a certain heat and power plant which the appellant was conducting in the basement of a building known as the 'Washington Building,' located in the city of Tacoma; that connected with the power plant was a toolroom maintained by the respondent, in which were kept the tools with which the respondent was to work; that beneath the floor of the toolroom, and opening therein, was a hot-water tank filled with boiling water, which the appellant carelessly and negligently suffered to remain uncovered and unguarded; that the toolroom was insufficiently lighted, so that any one coming into or passing through the same was in grave danger of stepping into the water tank; that the respondent had never been warned of the existence of the tank; that in the course of his duties, while working under the direction of the appellant's foreman, it became necessary for him to go into the toolroom to get some tools; that, after passing into the room, the lights in the adjoining rooms went out leaving the toolroom insufficiently lighted for him to see the water tank, and on his attempting to leave the room he stepped into the tank with his left foot, causing him great and permanent injuries, for which he demanded judgment. In its answer the appellant denied that the respondent was in its employ, or working under the direction of the foreman at the time he was injured, and denied that it was necessary in the course of his duty or otherwise for the respondent to go into the room in which he was injured, and, while admitting that he did go into the room and step into the tank, denied that the tank was anywhere near the passageway of persons going into or through the room, and as an affirmative defense alleged contributory negligence on the part of the respondent. For reply the respondent denied the affirmative allegations of the appellant's answer. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in respondent's favor for $2,700. At the close of the evidence, the appellant moved the court to take the case from the jury and enter a judgment for the appellant, and, on the motion being overruled, requested the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor, which motion was also denied. After the return of the verdict, it moved the court for a new trial, on the ground, among others, that the verdict was excessive and given under the influence of passion and prejudice. This motion the court likewise denied. The several rulings on these motions constitute the errors assigned on this appeal.
The motion to take the case from the jury, and the motion for a directed verdict, raise but one question, namely, the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a verdict in favor of the respondent; and, since the jury found in favor of the respondent, we must accept as true, where the evidence is contradictory, that part most favorable to his contention. The evidence tended to show the following facts; The appellant operates a heat, light, and power plant in the basement of the Washington Building, in the city of Tacoma. That a fixture connected with its plant was an exhaust pipe which ran from the boiler room to near the center of the building, thence upwards, through a light well, to the roof. To accommodate certain alterations that were being made in the building, it became necessary to change this pipe to another part of the light well. One Charles Richardson was selected to do the work. The appellant's secretary called him down to the plant, showed him what was necessary to be done, and directed him to procure the necessary assistance and move the pipe to the required position, telling him that the change must be made on the coming Sunday, as that would be the first day the fires would be out and the pipe cool enough to be handled. Richardson was a master steam fitter, maintaining a workshop in the city of Tacoma, where he kept all the necessary materials and tools to successfully carry on his trade. He also kept regularly in his employ a number of men, some of whom were master steam fitters, and others apprentices and helpers. The conversation between the appellant's secretary and Richardson occurred near the middle of the week, probably on Wednesday. After ascertaining what was to be done, Richardson sent a steam fitter by the name of Diamond, with a couple of helpers, to the plant, directing them to do certain preliminary work found necessary to be done before the pipe could be moved. Diamond and the helpers went to the plant on Thursday, and continued working there during the remainder of the week. While working there, the tools used by them were kept by permission of the appellant in a room off the engine room towards the front of the building, called by the witness the 'toolroom.' This room contained a work bench, and certain tools belonging to the appellant used in the business of steam fitting, and appears to have been used by the appellant as a workshop for doing repair work. The hot-water tank mentioned in the pleadings was in this room. It was a receptacle into which was drained the water condensing from the steam within the steam pipes. This respondent, who was also a master steam fitter, was at this time in the employ of Richardson, working on a building in another part of the city. On Saturday preceding the Sunday it was expected to move the pipe, Richardson told the respondent of the fact and requested that he go down there the next morning and do the work, telling him at the same time in answer to inquiries that he would find the necessary tools and helpers there when he arrived. The respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kamla v. Space Needle Corp.
...1089 (1996). Employees of independent contractors hired by landowners are invitees on the landowners' premises. Meyers v. Synd. Heat & Power Co., 47 Wash. 48, 91 P. 549 (1907); Epperly v. City of Seattle, 65 Wash.2d 777, 786, 399 P.2d 591 We have adopted sections 343 and 343A of the Restate......
-
E. L. Jones Const. Co. v. Noland
...that a duty arises because the decedent was an invitee. There can be no question but that this was his status. Meyers v. Syndicate Heat & Power Co., 47 Wash. 48, 91 P. 549. However, hsi status as an invitee does not impose upon the city any duty to protect him from the negligent acts of his......
-
Hymas v. UAP Distrib., Inc.
...(1996). Employees of independent contractors hired by landowners are invitees on the landowners' premises. Meyers v. Syndicate Heat & Power Co., 47 Wash. 48, 91 P. 549 (1907); Epperly, 65 Wash.2d at 786, 399 P.2d 591. ¶ 48 The obvious character of a dangerous condition bears on duty and lia......
-
Greenleaf v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co.
...duty of exercising reasonable care with respect thereto. 27 Am.Jur. Page 509, § 30. See 44 A.L.R. 891, note.' Meyers v. Syndicate Heat & Power Co., 47 Wash. 48, 91 P. 549, 551 pronounces the same '* * * But, in the absence of such express authority, the rule is that the servant of an indepe......