Daly v. Wight

LUCAS, J.,

pro tem.

By this action appellant Mary E. Daly, housemaid and servant of respondent Mary A. Wight, seeks to recover damages from said respondent and from respondents Anderson Brothers, plumbers, who were engaged in repairing the plumbing in the basement of the Wight home. It is alleged that appellant sustained personal injuries in the course of her employment by - reason of the negligence of the several respondents.

The evidence shows that on the day the injuries are alleged to have been sustained, Anderson Brothers had made an excavation in the floor of the Wight basement approximately three feet long and variously estimated to be from eight inches to a foot and a half wide and of a depth equal to its width. After Anderson Brothers had quit their work for the day, appellant went down to the basement for the purpose of turning off the electric lights, found the basement floor partially flooded with water, and while walking through the water for the purpose of turning off the lights stepped into the excavation, stumbled and fell against a sledge hammer, thereby bruising her body and fracturing two ribs.

[129]

The respondents Wight and Anderson Brothers filed separate answers, in substance denying the material allegations of appellant’s complaint and averring that negligence on the part of appellant was the proximate cause of her injury. In addition, respondent Wight in her answer pleaded that Anderson Brothers were independent contractors and that they alone were responsible for the injuries complained of, if any.

The case was tried without a jury and the court rendered judgment for respondents.' Prom this judgment appeal is taken on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify certain findings.

The findings that Anderson Brothers did not negligently or at all leave the hole in the basement unprotected or uncovered, and that appellant had knowledge of the existence of said hole, are both said to be erroneous. Tet, in this regard, John R. Anderson, one of the respondents, and the witness, John Lightfoot, both testified that when they quit work the afternoon in question, as a protection against accident, they left the electric lights burning in the basement and barricaded the excavation with an ironing-board and so-called zig-zag clothes bar. They also testified that appellant was told by Anderson about the hole in the basement floor and was advised to leave the lights burning.