Skip to main content
· 4/12/1886

District of Columbia v. McElligott

Citations

  • 117 U.S. 621
  • 6 S. Ct. 884
  • 29 L. Ed. 946
  • 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1883

Syllabus

<p>A supervisor of county roads in the District of Columbia was repairing them . with a force of laborers, one of whom was at work on a bank of gravel. There was evidence tending to show that he discovered that the bank was in an unsafe condition, and asked the supervisor for a man to watch it, and received assurance that such assistance would be given ; and that it was not given. The laborer continued to work there for half a day, when the bank fell upon, and seriously injured him. He brought suit against the District to recover damages for the injury. On the trial it was not alleged nor proved that the supervisor was incompetent. The court, after' instructing the jury that the negligence of the supervisor was one of the risks which the laborer took upon himself, and that the District was not liable unless he was incompetent, and such incompetency was known or ought to have been known to it, added further, that if the jury found that the laborer notified the supervisor of the dangerous condition of the bank, he would be relieved from the imputation of negligence during, the time necessary to provide a man to watch it. Meld :</p> <p>(1.) That the latter instruction -was inconsistent With the former,; and calculated to mislead the jury.</p> <p>(2.) That it was the duty of the laborer, hawing knowledge of the dangerous condition of the bank, to exercise diligence and care in protecting himself from harm, without regard to any assurances which he might have received from the supervisor that the assistance he had asked for, would be given.</p> <p>Hough v. Railway Company, 100 U. S. 218, explained.</p> <p>Whether the District-of Columbia is, in every case, exempt from liability for' the negligence of its supervisor of roads, resulting in personal injury to those who labor under his direction on public work, is not decided.</p> <p>Whether a supervisor of public roads and a laborer employed under him on the roads are fellow servants, within the meaning of the general rule

Judges: Harlan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.