National Fire Proofing Co. v. Crutchley

D.C. Circuit

National Fire Proofing Co. v. Crutchley

44 App. D.C. 271, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 1916

DocketNo. 2811

StatusPublished

This text of 44 App. D.C. 271 (National Fire Proofing Co. v. Crutchley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Fire Proofing Co. v. Crutchley, 44 App. D.C. 271, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594 (D.C. Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It was error to give the first part of the foregoing instruction. There was no evidence whatever that the men engaged in removing the beam were unskilled or unsafe persons. It is true that iron-work construction is a special industry, and that a special set of laborers were engaged therein, but this was not construction work. Removing the iron beam required no more skill than the removal of a wooden one or of the scaffolding itself. It was not, therefore, a violation of the defendant’s duty to set the men about this removal. The work being an ordinary work, it was not improper for the defendant to order it done by these employees. As to this order, the foreman or superintendent were fellow laborers with the plaintiff. New England R. Co. v. Conroy, 175 U. S. 323, 44 L. ed. 181, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 182; Collins v. John W. Danforth Co. 36 App. D. C. 592-599.

The place provided for the work was ordinarily safe. The injury resulted from the act of those removing the beam. Admit that they were negligent in adjusting the rope or handling the beam, — they were, nevertheless, fellow employees of the plaintiff, who, by his employment, assumed the risk of their negligence, and he is not entitled, to recover.

The court should have given the instruction to find a verdict for the defendant.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It was error to give the first part of the foregoing instruction. There was no evidence whatever that the men engaged in removing the beam were unskilled or unsafe persons. It is true that iron-work construction is a special industry, and that a special set of laborers were engaged therein, but this was not construction work. Removing the iron beam required no more skill than the removal of a wooden one or of the scaffolding itself. It was not, therefore, a violation of the defendant’s duty to set the men about this removal. The work being an ordinary work, it was not improper for the defendant to order it done by these employees. As to this order, the foreman or superintendent were fellow laborers with the plaintiff. New England R. Co. v. Conroy, 175 U. S. 323, 44 L. ed. 181, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 182; Collins v. John W. Danforth Co. 36 App. D. C. 592-599.

The place provided for the work was ordinarily safe. The injury resulted from the act of those removing the beam. Admit that they were negligent in adjusting the rope or handling the beam, — they were, nevertheless, fellow employees of the plaintiff, who, by his employment, assumed the risk of their negligence, and he is not entitled, to recover.

The court should have given the instruction to find a verdict for the defendant.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 App. D.C. 271, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-fire-proofing-co-v-crutchley-cadc-1916.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack