Reynolds v. Sec. Trust Co.

• Citation: 225 N.W. 575,246 Mich. 670
• Decision Date: 03 June 1929
• Docket Number: No. 106.,106.
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. SECURITY TRUST CO.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

246 Mich. 670

225 N.W. 575

REYNOLDS

v.SECURITY TRUST CO.

No. 106.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 3, 1929.

Error to Circuit Court, Macomb County; Eugene F. Law, Judge.

Suit by Homer Reynolds against the Security Trust Company, as administrator of the estate of John W. Irwin, deceased. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Argued before the Entire Bench. Walsh, Walsh & O'Sullivan, of Port Huron (Wm. T. Kelly and Bert V. Nunneley, both of Mt. Clemens, of counsel), for appellant.

George W. & Clifford A. John, of Mt. Clemens, for appellee.

WIEST, J.

While employed by John W. Irwin, owner, in wrecking an old frame barn, plaintiff was injured by timbers he was engaged in lowering, brought this suit to recover damages, declared it was the duty of his employer to provide a gin pole with block and tackle for the lowering of timbers, alleged defendant's failure to do so was the proximate cause of the injury to him, and had verdict and judgment against the administrator of Mr. Irwin's estate. The defendant reviews by writ of error.

The record presents the question of whether, in wrecking an old frame barn, it is the duty of the employer, in behalf of reasonable safety of workmen, to provide a gin pole with block and tackle for the lowering of timbers. If we affirm the judgment, we must hold that it is negligence to wreck a frame barn without employment of such an appliance. This we cannot do. Such an appliance may save timbers from damage, but with that we are not concerned. In wrecking a building the rule of safe place has no application. McParland v. Stewart, 244 Mich. 565, 222 N. W. 191. The case at bar, however, does not turn upon the rule of safe place, but upon the duty to provide appliances.

If Mr. Irwin, in wrecking his barn, conformed to the degree of care demanded of wreckers of old frame buildings, then he was not guilty of negligence. The degree of care required of the employer is measured by the usual and customary method employed by ordinarily prudent men in like work under similar circumstances, and is not to be governed by exceptional instances of greater or less care exercised, or by mere opinion that a particular way would have prevented the accident. The question is not whether in some instances such an appliance was used, but whether its use in behalf of safety of workmen has been commonly adopted. This question is not answered by an opinion of a witness that safety requires such an appliance and he has known of its use in some instances. A...