Morrison v. Burgess Sulphite-Fibre Co.

• Decision Date: 27 July 1900
• Parties: MORRISON v. BURGESS SULPHITE-FIBRE CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

47 A. 412

70 N.H. 406

MORRISON

v. BURGESS SULPHITE-FIBRE CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.

July 27, 1900.

Exceptions from Coos county.

Action by William A. Morrison against the Burgess Sulphite-Fibre Company for personal injuries. Exceptions to verdict for plaintiff sustained.

Case for personal injuries. Trial by jury, and verdict for the plaintiff, whose evidence tended to prove that on April 3, 1899, he was a man of average intelligence, 33 years old, employed by the defendants in their mill to set up and repair machinery. His work took him to every part of the mill, and on that day he, with others, was in the fourth story, putting up a bridgetree. This was a stick of Georgia pine, 10 inches square and 14 feet long, supported on timbers placed about 10 inches below the ceiling, which was 7 1/2 feet from the floor. One end of the bridgetree came nearly over the top of an elevator. This elevator consisted of a rectangular box 26 inches wide, extending at an angle of about 45 degrees from the basement nearly to the ceiling of the fourth story, where it turned at nearly a right angle towards the floor. It was built to lift material used in the upper story from the basement. This was done by means of a belt, with heavy iron buckets attached, running inside the box. That part of the elevator which turned back connected with an open box which extended along the floor at nearly a right angle to the elevator. This was called the "conveyor," and the material brought up by the elevator was carried in it to the machine where it was used. A few feet of that end of the elevator which connected with the conveyor, together with that end of the conveyor, were covered with canvas. The rest of the elevator was covered with boards. At the time of the accident this canvas was so covered with chips and dust that it could not readily be distinguished from the adjacent board covering, and it all appeared to one facing it like a flat surface of wood, 26 inches wide, extending from the top of the conveyor, which was from 2 to 2 1/2 feet from the floor, nearly to the ceiling, at an angle of about 45°. The workmen were unable to place the bridgetree in position, on account of an obstruction on the face of a supporting timber; and the plaintiff stepped upon that part of the elevator which was covered with canvas, intending to stand there and remove the obstruction, when almost immediately he lost his balance and fell upon the canvas, which gave way and precipitated him into the elevator buckets. It was not necessary, but only convenient, for him to stand there to do this work; but he helped to build the elevator, and he knew that the man who had charge of the work intended to cover it with boards, the same as the other elevators were, and when he stepped upon it he thought that this was so covered, and safe to stand on. The defendants knew how this part of their elevator was covered, but did not tell the plaintiff that the covering was canvas. He understood for what purpose it was built, and there was no evidence that the defendants intended their servants to use it for any other purpose, or that they had ever before done so. The court denied the defendants' motion for a nonsuit, and they excepted.

Enoch Foster, for plaintiff.

Drew, Jordan & Buckley, Chamberlin & Rich, and Orville D. Baker, for defendants.

YOUNG, J. The plaintiff says that the de fendants failed to perform the duty the law imposed upon them for his benefit, both in respect of furnishing him a safe place in which to work, and suitable tools and appliances for his use. But while it is the master's duty to use ordinary care to keep his premises in such condition that his servants can perform their work in safety, or to notify them of dangers to which they are exposed, and to furnish them with tools and appliances suitable for the purposes for which they are provided, or to notify them of the defects in those furnished, there was no evidence that they failed to perform any of these duties. If this elevator was a part of their premises, they owed him no duty to so cover it that he could safely use it as he did. They did not put the coverings on their elevators for their...