Landowski v. Chapoton
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Grant, J.
The defendant was a large contractor and builder. Among his various contracts was one for the erection of a church and parish house in connection therewith. Plaintiff was a brick carrier. While carrying brick upon a scaffold, it broke. He fell and was injured. The scaffold was first built by the carpenters. One for the use of masons is required to be stronger. In the necessary division of the work defendant had a scaffold builder, who had built scaffolds for 20 years, and never before had one broken. When the work was ready for the masons, the scaffold builder strengthened the scaffold as they deemed sufficient. The cause of the accident was a knot in the center plank. It was established by the testimony of both plaintiff and defendant that Mr. Chapoton employed competent men and furnished sufficient good material. If there was any negligence, it was that of a fellow-sérvant. The court properly directed a verdict for the defendant. The case is ruled by the following decisions : Quincy Mining Co. v. Kitts, 42 Mich. 34 ( 3 N. W. 240 ); Hoar v. Merritt, 62 Mich. 386 ( 29 N. W. 15 ); Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co., 103 Mich. 196 ( 61 N. W. 658 , 27 L. R. A. 266); Petaja v. Mining Co., 106 Mich. 463 ( 64 N. W. 335 , 66 N. W. 951 , 32 L. R. A. 435, 58 Am. St. Rep. 505 ).
Judgment affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.