Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/332/332mass14.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:40:45+00:00

Document:
REUBEN BLOOM vs. IRVING WARSHAW & another.
In an action by a house painter for injuries sustained in the course of painting the defendant's house when, as the plaintiff was stepping from an upright ladder onto a roof ladder which he had placed on the pitched, slate roof of the house and had hooked to the peak with a single hook, two loose, misaligned slates and the roof ladder slid side-ways together and he fell to the ground, the evidence left it conjectural whether the sliding of the ladder was caused by the sliding of the two slates or was due solely to the force exerted by him in stepping onto the ladder, and he could not recover.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated March 29, 1950.
The action was tried before Meagher, J.
Morris Michelson, for the plaintiff.
Samuel P. Sears, (Lawrence R. Cohen with him,) for the defendants.
RONAN, J. The plaintiff in this action of tort seeks to recover for injuries sustained when he fell from the roof of the defendants' house. The judge subject to the exception of the plaintiff directed a verdict for the defendants.
was testimony that the plaintiff had noticed that the corners of two slates were about one half an inch below the bottom line of their row of slates, and that these two slates swung to the right at the time the ladder moved to the right. It was discovered after the accident that the nail in the left hand hole of each of these slates had rusted and so permitted the left hand corner of the slates to sag below the bottom line of the row of slates.
If the defendants prior to the injury had examined the roof and found the two misaligned slates and should have known that they constituted a defect, it would be hard to perceive why the plaintiff, an experienced painter, who had actually seen the slates before he placed the ladder upon them, should not be charged with knowledge of the defect. He selected his own method for doing the work. An assurance of safety is usually a material factor, Burwick v. McClure, 318 Mass. 626, but there may be circumstances where it alone is not sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Rasimas v. Swan, 320 Mass. 60. We need not, however, further pursue the point in view of the conclusion we reach.
negligence rather than from a cause for which the defendants were not responsible. In our opinion it is a matter of conjecture and surmise whether the slipping of the ladder was due to the slipping of the slates or to the force exerted by the plaintiff in attempting to get upon it, causing it to swing to the right together with the two slates. Walker v. Benz Kid Co. 279 Mass. 533. Gallo v. Leahy, 297 Mass. 265. Mucha v. Northeastern Crushed Stone Co. Inc. 307 Mass. 592. Williams v. United Men's Shop, Inc. 317 Mass. 319.
The exceptions to the exclusion of evidence of certain witnesses, much of which was in most instances substantially introduced in evidence during the examination of these witnesses, require no further discussion. Even if it all had been admitted the result would be the same.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.