Taylor-Craig Corp. v. Hage, 544.

• Decision Date: 12 August 1895
• Docket Number: 544.
• Citation: 69 F. 581
• Parties: TAYLOR-CRAIG CORP. v. HAGE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

69 F. 581

TAYLOR-CRAIG CORP. v. HAGE.

No. 544.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

August 12, 1895

T. T Fauntleroy (Otto Kueffner and J. N. Searles, on the brief) for plaintiff in error.

John W Arctander filed brief for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge.

This was a suit for personal injuries which were sustained by Nels Hage, the defendant in error, while in the employ of the Taylor-Craig Corporation, the plaintiff in error, in the capacity of a journeyman painter and whitewasher. The circumstances under which the injuries were sustained were as follows: The Taylor-Craig Corporation, which will hereafter termed the 'defendant company,' was engaged in the general business of erecting, repairing, and fitting up buildings for occupancy. Prior to the injuries complained of, it had entered into a contract with another corporation, the Minnesota Shoe Company, to repair a building, which was to be used as a shoe factory, that had theretofore been partially destroyed by fire. The work of repairing said building had progressed so far at the time of the accident that the defendant company was engaged in whitewashing the ceilings of several of the rooms, in some of which the machinery necessary to be used in the business of manufacturing shoes had already been put in place and in operation by the shoe company. On the occasion of the accident the plaintiff, Nels Hage, was engaged, with some other men in whitewashing the ceiling of the fourth story of the building. Two revolving shafts had been put in place in that room by the shoe company, which ran from east to west the full length of the room, and were suspended on hangers about 18 or 20 inches below the ceiling. These shafts were put up in sections, the several sections composing each shaft being united at intervals by couplings and set screws. The plaintiff was standing on a scaffolding, the top of which was about six feet from the ceiling, and was engaged in whitewashing the ceiling above one of the shafts, and in close proximity to one of the couplings, when his shirt sleeve came in contact with the coupling, and was caught by one of the set screws. The shaft being at the time in rapid motion, the plaintiff was carried over the shaft, and was thrown violently to the floor, thereby sustaining serious injuries. In his complaint, which was filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, the plaintiff alleged, in substance, that the defendant company was guilty of a neglect of duty, in failing to furnish him with a reasonably safe place in which to do the work that he was required to do. In support of this charge the plaintiff averred that the defendant company knew, or ought to have known, that the set screws passed through the coupling, and protruded to some extent; that the fact that they did so protrude was not known to the plaintiff, and could not be discovered by him when the shaft was in rapid motion; and that the defendant company carelessly and negligently failed to warn the plaintiff of the existence of said protruding set screws in said coupling when he was set to work on the scaffolding. There was a trial before a jury, which resulted in a verdict and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. To reverse such judgment the defendant company has prosecuted a writ of error to this court.

At the conclusion of the testimony the defendant company requested the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor, for the reason that there was no evidence tending to establish the charge of negligence. The refusal of this instruction constitutes one of the chief errors that have been assigned. We are...