Parker v. Fairbanks-Morse Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1907
• Citation: 110 N.W. 409,130 Wis. 525
• Parties: PARKER v. FAIRBANKS-MORSE MFG. CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

130 Wis. 525

110 N.W. 409

PARKER

v.FAIRBANKS-MORSE MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 29, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rock County; B. F. Dunwiddie, Judge.

Action by John H. Parker against the Fairbanks-Morse Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action for personal injuries. It appears that the defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of machinery and engines in the city of Beloit, Wis., owning and maintaining buildings they use as mills and shops. At the time of this accident it was engaged in erecting a second-story addition to a shop building. The old one was a one-story brick structure, with hip roof in sections running east and west across the building, which was longest north and south. The improvement consisted of a second-story brick structure, to be built on top of the walls of the original structure. The plaintiff was engaged as a bricklayer on the walls of this new part of the structure. The accident happened on October 10, 1904. At the time of this accident, the walls of the addition to the shop had been built to, and in part above, what is called “scaffold height.” Plaintiff was engaged at the southwest corner of the addition in laying the outside brick wall, which was somewhat higher than the rest of the southeast and west wall. He was working on a scaffolding, inside of the wall along the west end of the structure. In performing his duty it was necessary to use the leadline for laying the brick on the outside of the walls. This line was placed over and around the corner and attached to a pin fastened in the outside of the south wall. When the wall had been built to a height so he could not reach from where he stood on the inside scaffolding to change the pin and leadline, it was necessary for him to go onto the scaffolding outside of the south wall to adjust the line. Some days before the accident, the defendant's mason foreman had notified the carpenter foreman, engaged on this building, that the scaffolding on the outside south wall would be needed to proceed with the erection of the building. On Friday and Saturday preceding the Monday when the accident happened, carpenters, under the direction of the carpenter foreman, built this outside scaffolding, except the west end of it, which was completed early in the forenoon of Monday and shortly before the accident. It was placed on the roof of the old structure, immediately south of the wall of the new addition. It consisted of uprights and standards, with ledger boards, footlocks, and planks for the covering or floor, on which the workmen were to stand and building material was to be placed. Soon after the carpenters had completed it, the plaintiff, while engaged in laying the southwest corner of these walls, as above stated, stepped from the inside scaffolding over the south wall onto this outside scaffolding to adjust the leadline at this corner, and then returned to his work on the inside scaffolding. In the course of about 10 or 15 minutes the leadline required resetting, and he again stepped over the south wall onto this outside scaffolding to perform this duty. While so engaged near the southwest corner, the scaffolding collapsed and fell, throwing him violently to the ground among the planks and other material of the scaffolding, causing him serious personal injuries.

It appears that no other weight than that of the plaintiff was on this scaffolding at the time it fell. He had used it in the usual and ordinary way and for the purpose for which it was designed. It is claimed that the scaffolding was defectively constructed and not reasonably safe; that defendant was guilty of negligence in not performing its duty in this respect. Allegations of specific negligence were that the scaffolding was insufficient and unsafe by reason of defendant's omission to place the footlock nearest the southwest corner of the building into a footlock hole of the south wall--footlocks are pieces of lumber extending from the ledger boards to the wall, upon which the floor of the scaffolding rests, and footlock holes are openings in the walls into which the footlocks are placed to hold them in place; that the westerly footlock was too far removed from the corner of the building and insecurely placed and supported by too short a standard, and that this was in turn supported at its foot by two or three bricks under it; that this footlock was not securely nailed to the standard; and that the scaffolding floor was composed of short planks so placed and projected over the last footlock as to render the structure insufficient and not reasonably safe for its purposes. The plaintiff's injuries were serious and caused him much pain. The evidence tends to show that he suffered the following injuries: The right leg was crushed, a break near the left wrist, dislocation of the right arm, injury to his left leg and knee, a break of the bones of the nose, and a cutting through the larger part of his upper lip. His right leg had to be amputated at the junction of the upper with the middle third of the femur. During the period of several months in the hospital, plaintiff suffered much pain and troublesome sores developed. After leaving the hospital in January following the accident, he was delirious at times as the result of his pain and suffering and suffered much from sleeplessness. His condition up to the time of the trial has necessitated much care and nursing, and he will require such assistance for an indefinite period. It is uncertain whether he will be able to make use of an artificial limb and to what extent he will be able to employ artificial aids to locomotion. Before the accident plaintiff's health was...