Stephens & Donaldson v. Pierson

• Decision Date: 19 June 1913
• Citation: 8 Ala.App. 626,62 So. 969
• Parties: STEPHENS & DONALDSON et al. v. PIERSON.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

62 So. 969

8 Ala.App. 626

STEPHENS & DONALDSON et al. v. PIERSON.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 19, 1913

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Sam Pierson against Stephens &amp Donaldson and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The complaint is as follows: "Plaintiff claims of defendants $5,000 as damages, for that heretofore, to wit, on the 25th day of September, 1911, defendants were engaged in the business of building or repairing houses in the city of Montgomery, Ala., and were on, to wit, said date, engaged in the business of building or repairing a certain house on Goldthwaite street, in the city of Montgomery, Ala., and plaintiff avers that on said day and date he was in the service or employment of defendants and engaged in and about the business of defendants, and, while then and there acting within the line and scope of his employment as such servant or agent in the business or service of defendants, namely, in coming down or getting down from the joists or ceiling of said house to the floor thereof upon a certain ladder or walkway of defendants, said ladder or walkway fell with plaintiff, and as a consequence thereof plaintiff suffered the following damages: [Here follows catalogue of injuries.] Plaintiff alleges that said ladder or walkway gave way or fell as aforesaid, and plaintiff suffered such injuries and damages by reason of and as a proximate consequence of a defect in the condition of the works, ways, machinery, or plant used in and connected with the business of defendants which defect arose from or had not been discovered or remedied owing to the negligence of defendants or of some person in the service or employment of defendants, and intrusted by them with the duty of seeing that said works etc., were in proper condition, in this, said ladder or walkway was weak, insecure, or otherwise defective." Count 2 is same as 1, and the defect is alleged as follows: "Said ladder or walkway was insecurely nailed, fastened, or made stationary, or otherwise defective." The third count is the same as the first, except the allegation of the defect is as follows: "The floor upon which the foot of said ladder stood or rested was slick, insecure, or otherwise defective, so that said ladder slipped and fell as aforesaid." The fourth count alleges the same facts as the first; the negligence being alleged to be a negligent failure to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to do his work.

Letcher, McCord & Harold, of Montgomery, for appellants.

L.A. Sanderson, of Montgomery, for appellee.

PELHAM, J.

The appellants were sued in the trial court by the appellee for $5,000 damages for injuries alleged by appellee to have been received by him as a laborer in the employ of the appellants while he was engaged in doing certain work in and about remodeling a dwelling in the city of Montgomery, that was in the course of being repaired or remodeled by appellants, as contractors. There was a recovery of $100 against the appellants, and from that judgment and a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial this appeal is prosecuted.

Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, the trial court committed no error in overruling the appellants' demurrers to the first, second, third, and fourth counts of the complaint. Birmingham Rolling Mills Co. v. Rockhold, 143 Ala 115, 42 So. 96; Sloss Iron & Steel Co. v. Tilson, 141 Ala. 152, 37 So. 427; Wolf v. Smith, 149 Ala. 457, 42 So. 824, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 338; Jackson Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, Adm'r, 141 Ala. 206, 37 So. 445; West Pratt Coal Co. v. Andrews, 150 Ala. 368, 43 So. 348; So. Cotton Oil Co. v. Walker, 164 Ala. 33, 51 So. 169. It was not...