Larsen v. Le Doux

Citations

• 11 Idaho 49
• 81 P. 600
• 1905 Ida. LEXIS 47

Syllabus

<p>Master’s Liability — Injury to Servant — Palling of Scaffold — Vice-principal — Fellow-servant—Negligence.</p> <p>1. The appellants were contractors engaged in the ereetion of what is known as the Elk’s Temple, Moscow. The respondent was employed with one K. to furnish mortar and briek to the bricklayers. One B. was the manager and in immediate charge of the construction of said building for the appellants. After the briek work on the northerly side of the building was completed it was necessary to erect a scaffold across the west end of the building for the use of the bricklayers. B. directed K. to erect such scaffold, and in doing so it was neeessary for him to put in place two joists or cross-pieces on which to lay the floor of the scaffold. Prom a lot of material furnished for that purpose, he selected two pieces and one of the brick masons nailed the ends thereof in place. Thereafter B. and K. laid some boards on said scaffold and thereafter the respondent assisted K. in completing the erection thereof. B. directed K. to lap the ends of the floor across the joist, which he neglected to do. Thereafter the respondent and K. placed a considerable quantity of mortar and bricks on said scaffold and the section supported, by one of said cross-pieces fell, the cross-piece having broken, and in the fall the respondent was injured. Held, that if there was negligence or carelessness m placing a defective eross-pieee in said scaffold, it was the negligence and carelessness of a fellow-servant and the appellants are not liable therefor.</p> <p>2. If the act or omission that caused the injury was one pertaining to the duty the master owed to his servant, he is responsible for the manner of its performance without regard to the rank of the servant or employee to whom it is intrusted. But if it is one pertaining to the duty of an operative, the employee performing it is a fellow-servant with his colaborers whatever his rank, for whose neglect the master is not liable.</p>