Vappi & Co. v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 08 June 1954 |
| Citation | 331 Mass. 463,120 N.E.2d 203 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | VAPPI & CO., Inc. v. SULLIVAN et al. |
Charles C. Worth, Boston, for plaintiff.
John A. Daly, Boston, for defendants.
Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.
The plaintiff had a written contract with B & M Realty Company, hereinafter referred to as the owner, to build for it a so called shopping center on the southerly side of Riverside Avenue in Medford. The specifications which accompanied and were a part of the contract contained the following provisions:
'Public Utilities
'Work Included
'Furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, appliances and services necessary to complete the work of demolition, clearing the site, excavation, removal of debris and removal of excavated material in a speedy, safe and satisfactory manner.'
'Protection
'Contractor shall take every reasonable and possible precaution to protect life and property from accident and damage on account of this work.
'Protect sidewalks, streets, curbs, etc., used for trucking or otherwise. Repair and make good all damages.
'Provide and maintain barricades, footwalks and railings.
'Provide and erect danger signs.
'Provide and maintain lighted lanterns at night for public safety.
'Protect all public utilities which are in the way of construction and also notify the public utility companies of any additional protection which should be provided by them. 'The Contractor will be held responsible for bank cave-ins on account of this work and shall pay for all damages caused by such cave-ins.
'Sheet Piling
'Where necessary to protect sidewalk banks and banks of adjoining property, this contractor shall install suitable wood or steel sheet piling to sufficient depth to properly support the banks until permanent foundation walls are constructed.'
On July 12, 1948, the plaintiff contracted in writing with the defendants for them 'to furnish all material and perform all work necessary to complete the Power Shovel Excavation and backfill for the Shopping Center * * * according to the plans and specifications (details thereof to be furnished as needed) of Herman L. Feer Architect * * *.' The defendants began to excavate under their subcontract on July 14. In performing the work they used a power shovel weighing from thirty-two to thirty-four tons. In excavating along the easterly boundary of the land on which the shopping center was being constructed a brick culvert was uncovered, which was located on the adjoining land to the east, and ran along the westerly boundary of the adjoining land from Riverside Avenue in a southerly direction to the Mystic River. This culvert, which was laid in a right of way known as Gravely Creek Road, was owned by the city of Medford and was used to convey storm water from the highways in the vicinity to the river. The top of the culvert was three or four feet below the surface of the ground, and wooden sheathing, which had been installed when the culvert was built, extended along the culvert on the side toward the shopping center from two feet below the base to two feet above the top. There was evidence that in bringing the power shovel to the land which was to be excavated the defendants had driven the power shovel over the culvert. There was also evidence that in excavating to the easterly line of the excavation the operator of the power shovel caused its pan to be thrown over the sheathing, thereby pulling the sheathing down into the excavation. On the night of July 20 the culvert collapsed and the excavation was flooded. The culvert had cracked for a distance of seventy-eight feet on the side toward the excavation. Photographs which were in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. L. Shalloo, Inc. v. Ricciardi & Sons Const., Inc.
...was shown to Shalloo when the subcontract was being made. Shalloo was entitled to rely on its provisions. See Vappi & Co. Inc. v. Sullivan, 331 Mass. 463, 466-467, 120 N.E.2d 203. In the circumstances, the prime contract and the accompanying documents not only set limits on the work to be d......
-
Chicopee Concrete Service, Inc. v. Hart Engineering Co.
...as the general contractor is bound to do "in relation to the particular part of the work to be performed." Vappi & Co. v. Sullivan, 331 Mass. 463, 467, 120 N.E.2d 203 (1954). See John Soley & Sons v. Jones, 208 Mass. 561, 566-567, 95 N.E. 94 If there was wholesale incorporation of the terms......
-
New England Insulation Co. v. Beacon Const. Co. of Mass., Inc.
...supplied). Beacon's subcontract with Babb specifically adopted the specifications and language above quoted. See Vappi & Co. v. Sullivan, 331 Mass. 463, 466-467, 120 N.E.2d 203; Ehret Magnesia Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Gothwaite, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 149 F.2d The insulation contract between Babb and......