Williams v. United Men's Shop
| Decision Date | 01 December 1944 |
| Citation | 58 N.E.2d 2,317 Mass. 319 |
| Parties | GEORGE WILLIAMS v. UNITED MEN'S SHOP, INC. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
October 23, 1944.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., LUMMUS, QUA RONAN, & SPALDING, JJ.
Negligence, Toward employee of independent contractor, One owning or controlling real estate.
A finding of negligence of the proprietor of premises toward an electrical contractor's employee sent there to repair an electric fan located in a recess was not warranted by evidence showing merely that while the employee was crawling out of the recess his hand was injured by contact with the fan when "he knelt on" "some loose object" which "tipped him over," but not showing the nature of the object or how long it had been there.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated January 27, 1941. The action was tried before Walsh, J.
J. T. Farrell, for the plaintiff. T. F. O'Brien, for the defendant.
The plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by him while engaged in repairing an electric fan on the defendant's premises.
These facts could have been found: The plaintiff was an electrician employed by an electrical contractor who had agreed with the defendant to do some electrical work in the latter's store. The contract, among other things, called for the installation of an electric fan, and on July 5, 1939, the plaintiff assisted in setting one up. The fan (which was installed in a rectangular area above one of the show cases in the store) was enclosed behind a removable screen. As a result of complaints from the defendant that the fan was not working properly, the plaintiff on July 20, 1939, (pursuant to instructions from his employer) went to the store for the purpose of making the necessary adjustments. He removed the screen and climbed into the recess in which the fan was located. To do this it was necessary for him to "crouch and crawl in on his hands and knees." The light was sufficient and he could see everything inside. Upon completing the adjustments on the fan, the plaintiff caused it to be started so that he could listen to it. He listened to it for two or three minutes, and, observing that he had left his pliers underneath the fan, again crawled into the recess to get them. After obtaining his pliers, and while withdrawing from the recess, "he knelt on something that got under his knee and `it tipped him over,' [it was] some loose object . . . `[which] was not part of the floor,' and he threw his hand up and hit the fan," as a result of which he sustained the injuries complained of. Between July 5, 1939, and July 20, 1939, the day of the accident, another contractor had done some carpentry work in the recess in which the fan was located.
At the close of the evidence, on motion of the defendant, the judge directed a verdict for the defendant subject to the plaintiff's exception. The correctness of this ruling is the only question for decision.
Where, as here, the defendant invited the plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor, to perform work on its premises, it owed him the same duty that it owed to one of its own employees. Keough v. E. M. Loew's, Inc. 303 Mass. 364 . Engel v. Boston Ice Co. 295 Mass. 428 , 432. Brogna v. Capodilupo, 279 Mass. 586 , 590. That duty is to disclose to the employee hidden defects of which the employer knows or of which in the exercise of reasonable care he should know. Gallo v. Leahy, 297 Mass. 265 , 268. Except in cases of hidden defects, the employer owes no duty to alter the condition of his premises to make them safe for the employee. Pilling v. Hall, 251 Mass. 425 , 427. Favereau v. Gabele, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial