Prendible v. Connecticut River Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1893
• Citation: 35 N.E. 675,160 Mass. 131
• Parties: PRENDIBLE v. CONNECTICUT RIVER MANUF'G CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

160 Mass. 131

35 N.E. 675

PRENDIBLE v. CONNECTICUT RIVER MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

November 29, 1893

Some of the witnesses for the plaintiff testified that Campbell ordered one Leary, a member of the piling gang to assist him in building the staging which fell, and that Leary did assist him; that, about a month before it fell, Campbell built this staging, and ordered a member of the piling gang to assist him; and that said member did assist him; and that these were the only times the staging was built by Campbell. All the witnesses for the plaintiff testified that no one gave any orders to the piling gang except Campbell; that he was the foreman of the gang that he sometimes worked with his hands; that he worked when he pleased, and that he did whatever work he pleased; that when he was working he was overseeing the men, and giving them directions, and that these two stagings were the only ones built previous to the accident while Campbell was with the gang; he looked to see if themen were on hand at the proper time, and made inquiries as to absent ones; that he placed the men at work wherever he saw fit; that he hired the plaintiff and one Sullivan at different times, at once, upon their application to him for a job; that after the staging was again fastened to the pile, after its fall, he directed a member of the gang, one Hannifin, to go under the staging and throw the wood up onto the staging; that Hannifin said he was afraid of the staging; that Campbell told him to go under the staging, and throw the wood up, or go home; and that Hannifin went home; and that after the accident Campbell rebuilt the staging.

COUNSEL

T.B. O'Donnell, for plaintiff.

J.B. Carroll, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The plaintiff was permitted to go to the jury on two counts, under the employer's liability act, (St.1887, c. 270,) ^[1]one alleging an injury by reason of a defect in the ways, works, or machinery of the defendant, and the other an injury received by reason of the negligence of a person in the service of the employer, intrusted with and exercising superintendence, whose sole or principal duty was that of superintendence. In regard to each count, the defendant asked for a ruling that there was no evidence to support it; and the principal exceptions arise from the refusal of the presiding justice to give either of these rulings.

The plaintiff was injured by the fall of a staging on which he was working. This staging was erected by the side of a wood pile, for the purpose of enabling the workmen to pile the wood higher. It was about 15 feet high, 20 feet long, and 5 feet wide, and it was taken down and put up from time to time in different places, and was intended to be used from four days to a week at a time in each place where it was erected. We think it was competent for the jury to find that the staging, when erected, was a part of the defendant's ways, works, or machinery.

Was there evidence that it was defective? It was held in place by three triangles or brackets, which were put up and taken down as a part of the staging, each of which was fastened to the wood pile by six wood cleats, one end of each cleat being fastened into the end of one or more sticks of wood in the wood pile, and the other end to an upright part of the bracket. There were three nails at each end of each cleat and the cleats were about a foot and a half or two feet long, about two inches wide, and about an inch thick. There was one prop or support under the outer edge of one end of the staging when it fell. The staging was designed to hold a quantity of wood which was to be brought there in...