The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-12-16
Her Husband Was 50 Badly Injured by FALL
ing Of a Staging That He Dlei.
FATALITY OCCURRED ON SUNDAY.
Defendants Claim Jury Should Have Been In
siructed That II egan Was Pursuing Ordinary
Calling on Sunday Widow Cannot Recover

In the Appellate division of the Su-
preme Court this morning, before Chief
Justice Matteson and Justices Stiness
and Tillinghast, the case OF Bridget
Egan, administrators; against Mcguire
d Penniman, came up on the defend
ants petition for new trial.
The plaintiffs attorney, Mr.. John w.
Hogan, in his brief says that the case
is an action by the plaintiff to recover
for the death of her husband, Michael
Egan, caused by the negligence of the
defendants, while the deceased was in
their employ. The plaintiffs intestate
was at work on Sunday, November 2S,
1897, upon scaffolding, or staging
erected by the defendants about the
outer walls OF mill building then in
course of construction by the defend
ants.
The accident happened at a corner of
staging, and the plaintiffs intestate
was carrying bricks and mortar upon
this staging, which had then reached a
height of about 80 or 80 feet. At about
o'clock in the morning, this staging
gave away and the plaintiff's s intestate
was thrown TO the ground. He was so
seriously injured that he never recov-
cred consciousness, and died at the
Rhode Island hospital on Tuesday
evening following the accident, i'm con-
sequence of his injuries. The cause OF
The giving way of the staging was the
breaking of the stringpiece, or ledger
board, about the middle of the space
between two upright posts. and stress
is laid upon the fact that while the reg
ular and usual space between the up
right posts, 10 which the ledger boards
are nailed, is about seven feet, the
space between the two upright posts
where the accident happened was from
nine and one-half to ten feet.
Upon the trial of the case, before
Judge Wilbur and a jury, a verdict Of
$4,000 was returned for the plaintiff, and
now the defendants ask for a new trial
basing the petition upon the refusal of
the judge to charge the jury as re-
quested, that If the defendants had pro-
Vided suitable and sufficient timber
which could have been used To erect
the staging in question and competent
workmen to erect the same, the defend
ants would not be liable for the negli-
gence of such workmen i'm erecting an
unsafe or unsuitable staging out of
such materials
Another and interesting exception
upon which the petition for n new trial
is based is the refusal of the judge to
charge the jury as requested, that If the
plaintiffs intestate. Michael Egan. at
the work OF his ordinary calling on
Sunday, and so was violating the Sun
day law, so-called. then the jury should
return a verdict for the defendants.
on behalf of the plaintiff il is set
forth that the fact that one who sus-
tains an injury by the negligence or
wrongful act OF another may have been
at the time of such injury. acting i'm
disobedience of his collateral obligation
to the state which required of him the
observance of the Sunday laws, will not
prevent "a recovery from one whose
wrongful ior negligent act or omission
was the proXimate cause Of the injury"
Again, there is a wide distinction be-
tween a contract that is Illegal because
made on Sunday, and the mere trans
gression of the Sunday law by doing
work upon that day in pursuance of
continuing contract of hiring or SER
vice, in itself legal, made and entered
into upon secular day. This very pal
pable difference clearly distinguishes
the Rhode Island cases relied upon by
the defendants, wherein the contract
itself was made on Sunday, from the
case at bar
The court heard the argument and
then held the case for advisement.