Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-26

April y. 1899
WHERE y LADDER EXTENDING;
FROM THE STREET TO THE SIDE
OF n BUILDING WAS BLOWN
DOWN AND \ PASSER- IN
JuRED. BOTH THE OWNER OF
THE HOUSE AND THE CITY. WHO
hNEW OF ITS POSITION. WE'RE
LIABLE. ALTHOUGH THE LAD
DER WAS BEING USED BY AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
IN SUCH CASE THE LADDER. NOT
THE WIND. WAS THE PROM
NATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
This was an action against the owner
ana occupants of Il store. and the viii
iaSe in which ii was located for dam
ages caused by the fall of a ladder upon
the plaintiff while he was passing along
the sidewalk. The ladder was 40 feet
long, one end rested in the gutter out
side the sidewalk and the upper end
against the building. 1t was placed
there some weeks before tho accident
10y IL party who had contracted with
the owner of the house to paint it,
furnishing his own equipment and ma
terial. The work had been finished al
least l3 days before the ladder was
blown down upon the plaintiff by an
unusual blast of wind. There was
iudgmen, for plaintif In the lower court
and defendants appealed.
Tho Court says:
Al of the defendants join in the ap-
peal, and their counsel contends that
no recovery can be sustained. because
;he ladder was placed in position by
the painter an independent contractor
Tor whose negligence defendants cannot
be held liable. Without stopping to
consider the availability of such Il de-
m hsi l.ll of
vlous that II is of no value to any of
the defendants, on the facts now before
US the occupants and the owner of the
building without surrcndering control
over 1t. permitted the painter to create
- nuisance in the public street when
in'% allowed him to put tho ladder in "A
position over the walk whore il was a
continual menace 10 all persons within
us reach should ii fan down. They. as
wei as the defendant village. maintain
cu THIS nuisance for several weeks and
Tor ri least IL days after all necessity
Tor the use az tho ladder had passed
BN employing an independent contrac-
tpr ihe owner or occupants of the build
lnS could not relieve themselves of the
continuing duty which they owed to the
nUDiIc not To create or maintain Il pub
ilc nuisance on their premises nor could
me village absolvc itself of a like duty
IN respect 10 permitting; Il nuisance to
he maintained. partly or wholly in it's
strcets. " a ladder placed over the side
Walk, MS this was. could be allowed to
cndanSer the life and limb of passcrs-
by, the Keeping of Il coal hole in a side
walk could be defended on the same
grounds. The question of the defend
ants negligence. under the circumstan-
ccs here, was peculiarly for the jury.
There is nothing in he claim that de-
iendants were not guilty of negligence.
because the ladder was blown down bv
an unusual wind The negligence of the
dcienCantS. owner and OCCUPANTS. in al
rowing the ladder to he inclined and to
remain across the walk. and of the viii
iaSe. after it's officers had knowledge
oI the fact. was the efficient cause of
inc injury To plaintiff. The fact that
some ether cause operated in conncc-
non with this negligence could not re-
lirNr the defendants from liability. The
Original negligence concurrod with an
DINER cause ana GENERATING ut the same
innmcnt. produced the injury The or
lsinhi negligent act Of placing one end
81 he ladder in tho public street. in
Ginning II over tho walk and resting
the upper end against the building. thus
cr"atin= IL public nuisance. was Inc
pr"Nlm"te cause of the accident. and
thout this act plaintiffs Injuries
would not have been received.