Ralph v. American Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1902
• Citation: 70 P. 1098,30 Wash. 500
• Parties: RALPH v. AMERICAN BRIDGE CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

70 P. 1098

30 Wash. 500

RALPH v. AMERICAN BRIDGE CO. OF NEW YORK.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 23, 1902

Appeal from superior court, King county; George Meade Emory, Judge.

Action by James J. Ralph against the American Bridge Company of New York. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. S. Eskridge, Leroy V. Newcomb, James Hamilton Lewis, and Thomas B. Hardin, for appellant.

Fred H Peterson, for respondent.

REAVIS C.J.

Action for personal injuries. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the construction of buildings, and was erecting the steel framework of a large building on Post street in Seattle. Plaintiff was employed by defendant in and about the erection of said steel structure, and his duties required him to work throughout the building. The maximum height of the structure was 80 feet. The large steel columns were raised with a derrick, and then pushed into place at the top with wooden beams 4 by 6 inches, and, when erected, stayed in place by such beams. One of the steel columns, which was 80 feet in height, had been erected, and was stayed by one of the wooden beams. The beam was placed at the bottom of one column, and then at an incline of about 60 degrees against the column it stayed. The column was also wedged at the top to keep it in a perpendicular position. This particular beam had been sawed off by one of the workmen, and was too short by about 18 inches, but, in order to make it available, was drawn away from the foot of the column at the bottom and a short piece of timber about 18 inches long put in between the beam and the foot of the column, where it was secured. This beam was about 16 or 18 feet long, and in this way used as a stay for the steel column, when cleats about 18 inches long were nailed upon the beam, and thereafter it was generally used by all the workmen about the building including the foreman of defendant, who had occasion to go up and down from the top of the structure to the basement. It had been in regular use as such ladder for about two months when the plaintiff was directed by the assistant foreman of defendant to go to the top of the structure on an errand. Plaintiff went up from the basement. He started up on the cleats nailed on the beam, and when about two-thirds of the way up on this ladder it turned over, and dropped about four feet, and the plaintiff fell to the basement of the building sustaining the injuries for which he claims damages. The complaint alleged that a Mr. Grimm was defendant's foreman in complete charge of the erection of the steel frame structure, and that the wooden beam used as a ladder was erected by defendant for the use of all its workmen. It charges negligence as follows: 'That through the negligence and carelessness of the agents and servants of said defendants, and particularly through the carelessness of said Grimm as such foreman and superintendent, without any knowledge thereof on the part of said plaintiff, the said timber was permitted to become loose and unfastened, and that when said plaintiff, in the usual course of his employment, attempted to go from the first to the second story of said building, and going by way of said timber, and upon the aforesaid cleats, the said timber, by reason of its not being properly fastened and having become loose as aforesaid, canted and rolled over and said plaintiff was thereby precipitated upon the iron beam of the first story of said building, a distance of about fifteen feet, and then was thrown into the basement of said building a further distance of about fifteen feet, or in all a distance of thirty feet.' The answer admits the employment of plaintiff, and that Grimm was in charge of the construction for defendant; admits the erection of the wooden beam, and its use by all the workmen as alleged in the complaint. For affirmative defense the answer alleges: 'That the nature, character, and position of the ladder referred to in plaintiff's complaint were open and apparent to plaintiff at all times, and that all damages and risks incident to the use thereof were assumed by him. That at the time and place of said accident said plaintiff carelessly and negligently stepped upon and attempted to climb said ladder, and carelessly and negligently loosened the same so that it turned, and carelessly and negligently fell therefrom; and defendant avers that the injuries, if any, sustained by plaintiff, were caused and contributed to by his own careless and negligent acts.'

1. There is no substantial conflict in the evidence as to all the material facts. It appears that plaintiff and his fellow workmen all engaged in raising and placing the steel columns, and also in bracing and staying them, as mentioned, with the wooden beams such as the one from which plaintiff fell, through it seems plaintiff was not engaged about or with any one in placing this particular beam as a stay, and had no knowledge that it was short, and braced at the bottom by another piece of timber. It does not appear from the evidence of plaintiff who fastened the cleats to the wooden beam. However, it does from that of defendant, which shows that defendant's timekeeper, and another workman employed in the same capacity as plaintiff, and the inspector of the structure, who was in the employ of the owner of the buildings, nailed the cleats to the beam which caused it to be used as a ladder. There was some evidence on the part of defendant tending to show that some stonemasons were also working around the structure; that such masons were in the employ of the contractor doing the masonry work; and that these masons put a rope around the steel column at its top, and in the course of their work loosened the wedges which were used to hold the top of the column in place. It was also shown that a fellow workman of plaintiff, some 20 or 30 minutes before the accident, observed the timber heretofore mentioned as holding the bottom of the beam in place was loosened, and this workman was looking for the foreman, Grimm, to inform him of the insecurity of the beam, when the accident occurred, and before he found the foreman. The foreman was familiar with the ladder, knew of its general use, and himself used it. Defendant was during all the times mentioned a contractor for the erection of the steel framework of the building.

2. The first error assigned is that the court should have taken the case from the jury because of the insufficiency of the evidence to show any negligence on the part of defendant. Counsel fo...