Thompson v. Isaacs

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Thompson v. Isaacs

110 A. 534, 95 Conn. 48, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 61

DecidedJune 10, 1920

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A. 534 (Thompson v. Isaacs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Isaacs, 110 A. 534, 95 Conn. 48, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 61 (Colo. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant’s intestate, Henry Isaacs, a builder, to do the carpenter work in the erection of a small frame building. In the course of its erection the building *49 fell, causing the plaintiff the injury for which he brings this action. The court directed a verdict for the defendant.

It might reasonably have been found by the jury from the evidence that the plan of construction of this building was faulty. But whether that might have ultimately caused the fall of the building is of no present relevance. The jury could, upon the evidence, have reached no conclusion other than that the proximate cause of the fall of the building was the removal of the center posts standing through the center of the first floor, and also of the braces running from the studs to alternate joists on this floor; and they must further have found that these posts and braces were necessary supports for the building, and that no experienced carpenter would have removed them without providing other supports.

The plaintiff was an experienced carpenter, and admittedly removed these posts and braces without providing other support to take their place. Clearly, upon the conceded facts, the fall of the building was due to the plaintiff’s own negligence.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant’s intestate, Henry Isaacs, a builder, to do the carpenter work in the erection of a small frame building. In the course of its erection the building *49 fell, causing the plaintiff the injury for which he brings this action. The court directed a verdict for the defendant.

It might reasonably have been found by the jury from the evidence that the plan of construction of this building was faulty. But whether that might have ultimately caused the fall of the building is of no present relevance. The jury could, upon the evidence, have reached no conclusion other than that the proximate cause of the fall of the building was the removal of the center posts standing through the center of the first floor, and also of the braces running from the studs to alternate joists on this floor; and they must further have found that these posts and braces were necessary supports for the building, and that no experienced carpenter would have removed them without providing other supports.

The plaintiff was an experienced carpenter, and admittedly removed these posts and braces without providing other support to take their place. Clearly, upon the conceded facts, the fall of the building was due to the plaintiff’s own negligence.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A. 534, 95 Conn. 48, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-isaacs-conn-1920.