Warren Const. Co. v. Powell
| Citation | 173 Ind. 207,89 N.E. 857 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,283.,21,283. |
| Parties | WARREN CONST. CO. v. POWELL. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; H. C. Allen, Judge.
Action by Hugh Powell against the Warren Construction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
E. E. Stevenson, for appellant. W. J. Beckett and Elliott & Elliott, for appellee.
Action in the lower court by appellee against the Warren Construction Company and the American National Bank to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the falling of a wall of the American National Bank building, which appellee was assisting in tearing down. The complaint is in one paragraph and alleges substantially the following facts: That said defendants and each of them are corporations, duly organized, etc. That the defendant American National Bank is the owner of the building at the southeast corner of Pennsylvania and Market streets situated in the city of Indianapolis, which building is known as the “Federal building.” That said bank employed its codefendant, the Warren Construction Company, to remodel and reform said Federal building so as to prepare the same and fit it for banking, in which business it was engaged. The Warren Construction Company retained and exercised at all times supervision of said work. That pursuant to said employment said construction company undertook to excavate and change the basement of the building. That the roof of the basement was composed of arches made of brick; said arches being about four feet wide and based upon I-beams, and these I-beams being composed of large beams of iron or steel and extended across from one wall to another. That by means of said walls, I-beams, and arches the first floor of said Federal building and the roof of the basement thereof were held in position. The plaintiff avers: That about the 4th day of January, 1906, he was employed by the defendants to work in and about the changing and remodeling of the basement of said building; that the defendants ordered and directed him to work in the basement in remodeling and tearing down a portion of one of the cross-walls; that this wall extended north and south through the basement and was about 18 feet long and from 13 to 18 inches thick and extended from the floor of said basement up to and supported the ceiling or roof of the basement. He was ordered and directed by the defendants to remove a part of said wall, which was originally about 8 feet high and supported as aforesaid alleged. The defendants had removed the upper part of said wall its entire length, and had separated the wall from the ceiling which it supported, and had torn said wall down to about 2 or 3 feet high from the floor of said basement.
At the time plaintiff was ordered and directed by the defendants to work on said wall, the upper part thereof had been removed, and he was directed and instructed by the defendants to remove, dig out, and tear down the lower part of the wall. Plaintiff avers that he did not remove or assist in removing the upper part of said wall, but at the time he commenced to work upon the wall the upper part had been removed, and at that time was entirely separate and disconnected from the ceiling or basement and was only about two or three feet high from the floor of the basement. While plaintiff was at work on the wall, pursuant to the direction and instruction of the defendants, the ceiling of said basement fell at the point where said wall had been removed from the ceiling and fell upon and injured the plaintiff, without any fault upon his part. It is charged: That the defendants had negligently removed said wall without placing any support under the ceiling at the point where the wall supported the ceiling; that the ceiling of the basement fell by reason of defendants' negligence in failing and neglecting to prop or stay the same in any way; that the defendants knew there was no I-beam or support of any kind at the base of said arch above said wall; that the bricks above said wall were placed straight and vertical and did not form an arch above the wall; that the arch was not supported and sustained in position in any way except by the adherence of the cement to the brick; that the defendants knew that said arch above said wall was not supported in any way except as last above stated, but negligently failed in any way to support or sustain said wall; that the defendants knew that the ceiling in its condition was dangerous and likely to fall and injure any one working on the wall or about the same. The defendants ordered and directed this plaintiff to work upon said wall under said ceiling; but negligently failed to notify and warn him of the dangerous condition of the ceiling or roof of said basement. They knew that the roof or ceiling above the wall was not sustained or supported by an I-beam or by any other structure, or in any other way. The plaintiff did not know that the base of said arch from which said wall had been removed was not supported and sustained by an I-beam, and he did not know that said ceiling at said point was likely to fall. Neither did he know that the condition of the foot of said arch above said wall was dangerous, and that the same was likely to fall and injure him while working upon and beneath said wall. By reason of the defendants' negligence in failing properly to inspect the foot of said arch above said wall, and by reason of their negligence in failing to sustain said ceiling and roof in any way, the arch fell, as aforesaid, upon the plaintiff, and injured him about the head, body, back, and legs, causing deep, painful and lasting injuries to the internal organs of the head, chest, abdomen, pelvis, etc. Said injuries are permanent, and have and will in the future cause plaintiff to suffer great pain and anguish during his life, that he has been unable to work and earn money, and that by reason of said injuries he has been put to large expense in and about the healing and treating thereof, and that he will be a permanent cripple and invalid as long as he lives. Wherefore he demands judgment for $15,000, and all other proper relief.
A demurrer upon the part of appellant, the Warren Construction Company, for insufficiency of facts to this complaint, was overruled. The American National Bank answered the complaint in two paragraphs, alleging in one that it had let by contract the work of remodeling its building to the Warren Construction Company, an independent contractor; that it had nothing to do with the work of remodeling the building except to let the contract. The Warren Construction Company answered by the general denial. There was a trial by jury, and at the close of the trial the court, on motion of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial