ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATRIX,
v.
SMITH
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.
A worker died when a doorframe fell on him while he was helping to demolish a building in Washington, D.C., and his administratrix sued the employer for negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace and adequate equipment. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' directed verdict for the defendant, holding that the evidence presented no basis whatsoever for concluding that the injury resulted from the employer's breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe work environment or proper tools.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by
Mr. Chief Justice White.
Charles P. Anderson was one of several workmen engaged in tearing down an old building in Georgetown .in the District of Columbia. The building had been demolished as far as the first floor, and it became necessary to take down a large doorframe. While Anderson was engaged with others in that work the frame fell upon him and caused injuries from which he died. An administra-trix was appointed and brought" this action against the employer of Anderson to recover damages, basing the right of action upon alleged negligence in failing “to provide a reasonably fit, proper and safe place” for Anderson to work, and also in failing “to furnish reasonably fit and proper machinery, reasonable adequate and sufficient tackle or implements, or a reasonably safe and proper number of men for the removal of such doorframe.” At the trial, on the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the court being of opinion that there was an utter failure of the proof to sustain the allegations of negligence, directed the j'ury to return a verdict for the defendant, and the j’udgment entered on the verdict was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the District. (35 App. D. C. 93.) This writ of error was then prosecuted.
Without attempting to state the evidence, we think there is no room whatever for the contention that the court below erred in affirming the action of the trial court in taking the case from the j’ury. We say this because, adopting the view most favorable to the plaintiff of the evidence, it affords not even a shadow of ground for coneluding that the injury suffered was caused by the failure offthe master to perform the positive duty resting on him to exercise reasonable care to provide a safe place for the work or proper appliances.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corp. de Gestion Ste-Foy, Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 385 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…mer of a common carrier has expended non-refundable moneys out-of-pocket because of an improper undercharge, but was nonetheless required thereafter to pay the carrier the full amount. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U.S. 441, 33 S.Ct. 176, 57 L.Ed. 290 (1913); Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Mugg & Dryden, 202 U.S. 242, 26 S.Ct. 628, 50 L.Ed. 1011 (1906); Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. J. J. Case Plow Works, 173 Wis. 237, 180 N.W. 846 (1921). The sole authority cited by the plaintiff on the est…
-
State v. Wilkins-Austin Corp., 150 Fla. 604 (Fla. 1942)…show that the committee named in the act had made a valid assessment before passage [*610] of the act, and that therefore the decision was based on the evidence, or the lack of it, in that case. In the case of Scotten v. Littlefield, 235 U. S. 407, 57 L. Ed. 289, the Supreme Court of the United States held, quoting the second headnote, as follows: “2. A subsequent decision of the Federal Supreme Court, which would have required a different result if the governing principles had been applied in reclamation…
-
Brady v. S. Ry. Co., 320 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1943)…e trial the result is saved from the mischance of speculation over legally unfounded claims. Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372; Pence v. United States, 316 U. S. 332; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U. S. 521, n. 1; Anderson v. Smith, 226 U. S. 439; Coughran v. Bigelow, 164 U. S. 301, 307; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U. S. 90, 93, note; Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668, 673; Parks v. Ross, 11 How. 362, 373. See IX Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed., 1940), §§2494 et seq. An examination of the…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence