ARMOUR
v.
HAHN

U.S. | 1884-04-14
111 U.S. 313 Supreme Court of the United States (1884) Caution
Also reported at: 28 L. Ed. 440 · 4 S. Ct. 433 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1785 · SCDB 1883-220
Cited by 26 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A carpenter injured while working on a building under construction sued his employer for negligence, but the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment, holding that the employer was not liable because the plaintiff and the fellow workers whose negligence allegedly caused the injury were fellow servants under the same master, and therefore the fellow-servant rule barred the employee's recovery against the common employer.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Gray

Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court. He' stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued :

This court is of opinion that the Circuit Court erred in not rendering judgment for the defendant on his demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence.

There was no evidence tending to prove any negligence on the part of the firm of which the defendant ivas a member, or of their superintendent, or of the foreman of the gang of carpenters. The obligation of a master to provide reasonably safe places and structures for his servants to Avork upon does not impose upon him the duty, as towards them, of keeping a building, Avhich they are employed in erecting, in a safe condition at eArery moment of their AArork, so far as its safety depends upon the due performance of that work by them and their felloAvs. The plaintiff Avas not a minor, employed in Avork Avhich Avas strange to him, but was a man of full age, engaged in ordinary Avork of his trade as a carpenter.

The evidence tended to shÓAV that he and one of his comrades Avere directed by their foreman to push the joist out on the projecting sticks of timber, not that he told them to go out themselves. The projecting timber upon Avhich the plaintiff placed his foot Avas inserted in a Avail which Avas in the course of being built, and Avhich at the time had been bricked up only so far as to be on a level Avith the upper surface of the tipiber. The usual course, as the plaintiff himself testified, was to put the timber in, and leave it in that way temporarily, and aftenvards build the wall up over it. It is not pretended that the stick of timber Avas in-itself unsound or unsuitable for its purpose. If it Avas at the time insecure, it Avas either by reason of the risks ordinarily incident to the state of things in the unfinished condition of the building'; or else by reason of some negligence of one of the carpenters or bricklayers, all of whom Avere employed and paid by the same master, and Avere Avorking in the course of their employment at the same place and time, with an immediate common object, the erection of the building, and therefore, within the' strictest limits of thd rule of law upon the subject, fellow servants, one of whom! cannot maintain an action or injuries caused by the negligence of another against their common master. Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 213 ; Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 109 U. S. 478.

The judgment of the Circuit' Court must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Kreigh v. Westinghouse, 214 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1909)
    …onably safe appliance and place for his employés to carry on the work, nor is he obliged to keep the place safe- at every moment, so far as such safety depends on the due performance of the work by the servant and his fellow-workmen. Armour v. Hahn, 111 U. S. 313; Perry v. Rogers, 157 N. Y. 251. •Nevertheless, the duty of providing a reasonably safe place for the carrying on of the work is a continuing one, and is discharged only when the master furnishes and maintains a place of that character. , As late a…
  • Thomson v. Boles, 123 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. 1941)
    …d in work of such a character that conditions were constantly changing and that this relieved the defendant of the duty to make the place safe. Davis v. Souder, 134 Va. 356, 114 S.E. 605; Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 96 F. 2d 976; Armour v. Hahn, 111 U.S. 313, 4 S.Ct. 433, 28 L.Ed. 440. But while the principle of law advanced is generally well recognized, it has no application to the instant situation. This bridge was not undergoing any general reconstruction at the time of the accident. The crew were m…
  • Kuptz v. Ralph Sollitt & Sons Const. Co., 88 F.2d 532 (5th Cir. 1937)
    …the duty, as towards them, of keeping a building, which they are employed in erecting, in a safe condition at every moment of their work, so far as its safety depends upon the due performance of that work by them and their fellows.” Armour v. Hahn, 111 U.S. 313, 4 S.Ct. 433, 434, 28 L.Ed. 440. Every workman understands that there is more or less danger incident to the erection of a building, and thát conditions of safety will change from time to time as the work progresses. He knows, as plaintiff himself…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw