Twombly v. Consol. Elec. Light Co.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1903
• Citation: 98 Me. 353,57 A. 85
• Parties: TWOMBLY v. CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

57 A. 85

98 Me. 353

TWOMBLY

v. CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 21, 1903.

(Official.)

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Cumberland County.

Action by Harry N. Twombly against the Consolidated Electric Light Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial. Overruled.

Case for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff January 1, 1902, while in the defendant's employ at work upon an extension ladder at a house on Congress street in the city of Portland.

From the testimony it appeared that the defendant corporation was engaged on the 1st day of January, 1902, and had been for a long time previous thereto, in generating and transmitting electricity for lighting houses and other buildings in Portland, and for various other purposes, and had lines of poles or posts erected upon and along the public streets and highways of Portland for the purpose of transmitting electricity thereon; and the plaintiff was a "lineman" in its employ, and had been from August, 1901, to the day of the accident.

For the purpose of attaching brackets and wires to buildings at points high up from the ground, the defendant corporation used a 40-foot extension ladder; that is, the part of the ladder that stood upon the ground was 20 feet long and the extension part was also 20 feet long.

At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the day of the accident, the plaintiff, George Moody and John F. Foster—two other men then in the employ of the defendant—were sent to this house by Mr. Phillips, foreman of outside construction, to connect it with wires for the purpose of lighting, Moody being put in charge and control of the work and of the other men.

As it was necessary to put two corner brackets into the corner of the house at a point 30 feet from the ground, the extension ladder was placed on the sidewalk in front of the house and extended, and the top end allowed to lean against the side of the house, and near to its northwesterly corner. Plaintiff was sent by Moody up this ladder to put in the corner brackets and attach the wires thereto. This he did.

Foster was sent up a pole standing in the street in front of the house, and from which the wires were taken to insert into the house. The plaintiff put in the brackets, and the wires which were thrown to him by Foster from the pole by means of a handline he fastened to the brackets; the handline, in the meantime, lying on the top of a railing, which was on the roof of a bay window in the second story of the house, the top of which railing was 25 feet and 9 inches high.

When plaintiff had completed all the work up there that he was directed by Moody to do, he prepared to descend to the ground, and took hold with his right hand of the top round in the ladder, and placed his left foot over onto the roof of the bay window to enable him to reach for the handline. He got hold of the line in his left hand, and made an effort to pull himself back in an upright position on the ladder by his right hand, when the round that he had hold of suddenly broke at one side of the ladder and pulled out from the other side, and thus threw him over backwards down onto the sidewalk, one of his feet striking the glass in the upper bay window, breaking two lights,

On the way down he caught hold of the top part of the lower section of the ladder with his right hand, changing the position of his body so that hyis feet were lower than his head, and fell the rest of the distance of 20 feet, striking the sidewalk in a sitting position, but leaning backwards, receiving injuries to his back, right foot, and left arm and hand, from which he has ever since suffered, and still suffers, and has not been able to do, and has not done, any labor, to speak of, since that time.

The jury returned a verdict of $3,000 for the plaintiff.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and SPEAR, JJ.

Win. Lyons, for plaintiff.

Geo. E. Bird and Win. H. Bradley, for defendant.

SAVAGE, J. Case by servant against master to recover damages for personal injuries.

The plaintiff was employed upon a ladder about 25 feet from the ground, and in reaching for a rope with one hand nearly his whole weight was suspended from a round in the ladder which he held with the other hand. The round broke, and he fell to the ground sustaining injuries. No complaint is made that the plaintiff himself was not in the exercise of due care. But after a verdict for the plaintiff the defendant now contends, upon a motion for a new trial, that the case shows no want of due care on its own part.

The ladder in question was a 40-foot extension ladder, and was extended at the time of the accident to the plaintiff. There was evidence that an examination of the round after the accident showed it to be dozy on the outside and rotten. The ladder had been in use somewhat more than three years. It seems that the defendant company had no regular rules governing the inspection of appliances. Such inspection and repairs consequent upon it were usually reserved for rainy weather, when the men could not work out of doors. The foreman of construction had general oversight over the appliances, and was under the duty of keeping them in repair. A man was especially delegated to make general repairs, but it does not appear that it was his duty to make inspections. It is true that the testimony of the defendant tended to show that the rounds of the ladder were of white ash, and sound; that an examination of the round after...