Sullivan v. Boston Electric Light Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1902 |
| Citation | 181 Mass. 294,63 N.E. 904 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. BOSTON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James E. Cotter and B. R. Doody, for plaintiff.
Everett W. Burdett and Chas. A. Snow, for defendant.
The immediate cause of the fall of the roof was the 'buckling' or bending of several steel columns at the easterly end of the northerly wall of the engine room. Although the evidence as to the cause of this bending was vague and rather unsatisfactory, still it would warrant a finding, in accordance with the testimony of the only expert witness called by the plaintiff, that the bending was due in part to the jar and strain caused by the operation of the crane before the brick wall which was to encase and strengthen the steel columns had been carried to a sufficient height; and that the operation of the crane under the circumstances was a negligent act. At the trial it was contended by the defendant that, even if this was true still the evidence failed to show that the crane was operated by the defendant, or by any one for whose acts it was answerable; the ground of the contention being that the work upon the building was all being done under independent contractors, over whom the defendant had no control. And the real question on this part of the case is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding that the crane was operated by the defendant. The land was owned by the defendant, and the building was being erected thereon by its procurement, and when completed was to be used by the defendant in its own business. In the absence of any explanation of the relation between the actual workers upon the building and the defendant, these facts, of themselves would justify a finding that they were its agents and servants. It appeared, however, that there were several independent contractors upon the work,--the Pennsylvania Steel Company, which had a contract covering the crane and all the other steel work; Whidden, by whom all the brick and mason work was to be done; and, perhaps, McIntosh, who put on the terra cotta and other roof material. It further appeared that the engine foundation stones were to be furnished by the Cape Ann Granite Company and set by Whidden, but the nature of the contract with the Cape Ann Company did not directly further appear. There was no evidence of any other independent contractors. The crane was in position, and on several days before the accident was operated 'for moving or hoisting foundation stones, machinery, big steam pipes, flagging, and things connected with the engine, * * * but it did not appear under whose direction or control it was operated on any of these occasions, unless it can be inferred from the evidence stated' in the bill of exceptions. 'It did appear however, that the crane was in no way under the control of Whidden, and that the operator was not in [his] employ.' Whidden testified that during the time the crane was thus in operation 'the stone on one of the engine foundations had been set, and one stone on the second foundation * * *; that is, one whole foundation had been set and part of another.' He also testified that the stones were brought into the building by the 'granite man,' who furnished them; and when asked what means were used for bringing the stones into the building and putting them into position where he could set them, replied, 'They were unloaded from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial