Home/West Virginia Supreme Court/Moll v. Bayha

Moll v. Bayha

150 S.E. 515, 108 W. Va. 173, 1929 W. Va. LEXIS 199
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 12, 1929
Docket6512
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 515 (Moll v. Bayha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moll v. Bayha, 150 S.E. 515, 108 W. Va. 173, 1929 W. Va. LEXIS 199 (W. Va. 1929).

Opinion

*174 Lively, Judge:

At tbe conclusion of the evidence the court, on motion of plaintiff, instructed the jury to find for plaintiff, a verdict was returned as directed, and after the usual motion to set aside, judgment was entered on the verdict for $6,480.00 on January 17, 1929. This writ followed. Defendants asked the court for a peremptory instruction in their favor, and for other instructions, all of which were refused.

Defendants contend that they should have had a peremptory instruction, or if not, then the question of their negligence should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions; while plaintiff contends that the court did not err in directing the jury to find for him.

The declaration charges that the relation of master and servant existed between defendants and plaintiff, and that defendants did not furnish plaintiff a safe place to work in that they had constructed on the premises where he was employed an unguarded and unlighted pit in an air and light passage between defendants’ plant and an adjoining building, into which, without knowledge or warning of its existence, plaintiff fell on a dark night and was injured; and that defendants were not subscribers to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund.

The following plat will visualize the premises where the accident occurred, and assist in understanding the evidence.

Plaintiff was hired as a baker by defendants (a partnership) on Wednesday, and was shown to his place of work on that night. The way to the bakery in defendants’ plant, for the workmen, was from Market Street in the city of Wheeling through a gate kept locked into the brick paved passageway between the Bayha and 'Stifel buildings (shown on map); thence to a widening of the passageway, or to a small court, thence through a door, marked X on the map with an arrow pointing to it, into a storage room wdiere there were lockers for the workmen. Plaintiff followed this course in company with another workman on Wednesday night, and made his exit by the same way next morning in daylight; on Thursday night he came back about twelve o’clock and followed the same route in the company of another workman; on Friday *175 morning be went ont through the building onto Market Street, and that day was given keys to the Market Street gate entrance to the door marked X on the map and to a locker in the storage room. He says there were five or six keys given him, while Bayha says he was given only three keys on a keyring. Friday afternoon about five o’clock (in daylight) he came back to work and pursued the same way to his work, and left by the same way about eight o’clock on Saturday morning. He came back to work a few minutes after twelve o’clock (his usual time of beginning work) on Sunday night, unlocked and entered the Market Street gate and came to a door on the court or yard. He says he tried the keys but was unable to unlock the door, and then went on back for the purpose of knocking on one of the windows to attract the attention of his fellow workmen and obtain entrance. It was a dark rainy night, and he says it was very dark in the paved court and .passageway. He did not knock on the first windows because of bricks and debris piled in front of them in the court, and went on back to where the court narrowed to the five-foot light and air space between the buildings, thence a distance of ten feet to the pit where there was a sheer drop of six and one-half feet, and walked into it receiving a severe injury to his right hip. There is some uncertainty as to whether he was attempting to knock on the window at that point, or whether he just walked into the off-set in the air and light space between the buildings. He made an outcry and two of his fellow workmen hearing him observed him on his knees with his hands on a ladder in the pit. They ran out of door marked X, which was a screen door, and which they say was not locked (they just pushed it open) followed by Mr. Bayha, who took a flashlight, and one of them carried him into the building on his back. Dr. Hupp was immediately sent for and he took plaintiff to a hospital, where he remained for about two weeks. The distance from the Market Street entrance to the screen door marked X was about 54 feet, the brick paved court was thirteen feet nine inches wide and about 38 feet in length; the distance from the screen door to the end of the court was about 21% feet, where the air and light space began which was about four feet and eleven inches *176 in width; and the pit in the air and light space between the buildings was located about ten feet from the court; or a distance of 31% feet from the screen door. No one ever went back to this pit except the persons who cleaned it out. It served some purpose in connection with the building. A window in the Bayha building was located just about where the drop in the air and light shaft began. These windows will appear on the map, as well as the locations and watt power of the electric lights near them. There was a 100 watt light just inside the screen door. These lights were burning, as well as lights in Stifel building reflected through the two windows in that building marked on the map. The two windows in the Stifel building were frosted, but the windows in the Bayha building were not. Plaintiff says the passageways and the court were dark, whereas, several witnesses say that all the lights were shining through the windows, that 1 the screen door was open (that is the door behind the screen) and the 100 watt light shone out into the court. The evidence of three witnesses for defendants, is that the court and the air and light space were reasonably well lighted. One of plaintiff’s fellow workmen in the building could see plaintiff on his hands and knees in the pit, and immediately left the building and wént to his aid, accompanied by another workman. The distance, location of lights, windows and doors are detailed at length for they have a very material bearing on whether the master had furnished a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work, reviewed in the light of the circumstances surrounding the accident.

*0

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Samuel Spaulding, an Infant Under the Age of 21 Years, Who Institutes This Suit by His Father and Next Friend, Junior Leroy Spaulding, and Junior Leroy Spaulding v. Ads-Anker Data Systems-- Midwest, Inc., a Corporation, Robert N. Johnson v. Ads-Anker Data Systems-- Midwest, Inc., a Corporation
498 F.2d 517 (Fourth Circuit, 1974)
Spaulding v. Ads-Anker Data Systems—Midwest, Inc.
498 F.2d 517 (Fourth Circuit, 1974)
Thorn v. Addison Bros. & Smith, Inc.
194 S.E. 771 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 S.E. 515, 108 W. Va. 173, 1929 W. Va. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moll-v-bayha-wva-1929.