Saxon v. Barksdale

Haht, J., (after stating the facts). As a general rule, where a scaffold or staging is furnished by an employer as a completed structure, he is liable to an employee injured through his failing to furnish a reasonably safe structure as a place upon which to work. So in this case, if the defendants undertook to furnish the scaffold as a completed structure for the plaintiff and his fellow-workmen to work upon, it was their duty to see that it was reasonably safe for the purpose for which it was' intended. Murch Bros. Construction Co. v. Hays, 88 Ark. 292. On the other hand, if the defendants did not undertake to furnish the scaffold ás a completed structure, hut it was the duty of the plaintiff and the other carpenters employed with him to build the scaffold, then the only duty resting upon the defendants was that of using reasonable care in providing suitable materials for the object in view and employing suitable men to do the work. Vulcan Construction Co. v. Harrison, 95 Ark. 588. Numerous other decisions from the courts of last resort of the various States sustaining the general rule may be found in the case-notes to Studebaker v. Shelby Steel Tube Co. (Pa.), 18 Ann. Cas. 611, and Haakensen v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co. (N. H.), Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1122. But, in this case, the scaffold was not a permanent platform furnished by the defendants on which the plaintiff and his fellow-workmen were invited to stand during their work. It was a temporary platform constructed by the workmen themselves, and to be lowered or raised any height by them as the work progressed and as their needs required. It is true that the plaintiff did not actually help make the staging or scaffold upon which they worked, but he and the other two carpenters who did construct it were all engaged in carrying on the same general work, and no one of them performed duties which did not in some way relate to or affect the safety or the instrumentality with which, or places in which, the others worked. This was a case in which the three carpenters were working together upon the same part of the. building, and it was necessary, as a part of their work, to construct scaffolds to stand upon in doing their work. It does not appear that J. R. Lockhart, as foreman of Dr. R. L. Saxon, interfered in any way or gave any suggestion in the manner of selecting- or fastening the materials together to form the scaffold. This was left to the men engaged in doing the work of repairing the hotel, and the construction of the scaffold was a part of their work. The undisputed evidence shows that the fellow-workmen of the plaintiff were good carpenters and skillful workmen. For aught that appears in the record, there was plenty of good material on hand with which to. build the scaffold. Therefore the defendants were not answerable to the plaintiff for the negligence, if any, of his fellow-workmen in constructing the scaffold which fell and thereby caused his injury. It follows that the judgment must he reversed, and, inasmuch as the case appears to.have been fully developed, the cause, of action will he dismissed.