Case Name: CAULDWELL v. BINGHAM & SHELLEY CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1917-03-20
Citations: 84 Or. 257
Docket Number: 
Parties: CAULDWELL v. BINGHAM & SHELLEY CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice McCamant concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 257–270

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied February 23, 1916.
Argued on the merits Mareh 7,
reversed and remanded March 20, 1917,
rehearing denied May 22, 1917.
CAULDWELL v. BINGHAM & SHELLEY CO.
(155 Pac. 190; 163 Pac. 827.)
ON MOTION TO DISMISS.
Time — Perfecting Appeal — Statutory Provisions — Sunday.
1. Under Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, providing that from the expiration of the 5 days allowed to except to the sureties in the undertaking on appeal, the appeal shall be deemed perfected, an appeal became perfected with the expiration of Monday when the fifth day after the filing of the undertaking fell on Sunday.
Appeal and Error — Filing of Transcript — Time to File.
2. Where an appeal was perfected on October 4th, a transcript filed on October 28th following was filed-within 30 days after the appeal was perfected, as prescribed by Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 618.
Appeal and Error — -Filing of Printed Abstract — Time to File.
3. A respondent who formally consented to delay in filing on appeal the printed abstract of record cannot complain of the failure to file the same within the statutory period.
ON THE MERITS.
Master and Servant — Personal Injuries — Independent Contractor— Employers’ Liability Act.
4. Under Employers’ Liability Act (Laws 1911, pp. 16, 17), providing that all owners, contractors, subcontractors, or other persons whatsoever engaged in the construction of any building shall see that all shafts, wells, and floor openings are inelosed, and shall be liable for failure to comply with this act, etc., one having a contract to do mason work of a barn for total cost, with 10 per cent additional for superintending, and another having a contract to take immediate charge of carpenter work- at a flat rate over cost of labor and materials, who are both actually engaged in construction of a barn and responsible for 'laying of a temporary floor over basement, are liable for fatal injunes to a servant of the latter who falls through an unguarded opening in the floor; the test of whether they are servants or contractors not being in the manner of their receiving compensation.
[As to duty and liability of master with respect to guarding shafting, see note in Ann. Gas. 1914A, 658.]
Master and Servant — Injuries to Servant — Guarding Openings in Floor — Employers’ Liability Act.
5. Under Employers’ Liability Act, providing that all owners, contractors, subcontractors, or other persons whatsoever engaged in the construction of any building shall see that all shafts, wells and floor openings are inelosed, and shall be liable for failure to comply with this act, etc., it cannot be held as a matter of law that a staging on top of a trestle about five feet above an opening in a temporary floor laid over basement of a barn under construction is an inclosure within the meaning of the statute.
Negligence — Violation of Statute — Evidence.
6. The violation of a statute designed for protection of others constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence or negligence per se.
Master and Servant — Superintendent—Employers’ Liability Act.
7. Although Employers’ Liability Act, Section 2, declares that a superintendent or person in charge of particular work shall be held to be the agent of the employer in eases for damages, it does not relieve a superintendent from personal liability for duties enjoined by Section 3.
Master and Servant — Employers’ Liability Act — “Opening.”
8. Employers’ Liability Act, providing that all shafts, floor openings, etc., shall be inelosed includes an “opening” in a temporary floor laid over basement of a barn, and that one party engaged in the construction does not desire to have a permanent floor constructed till the roof is put on, does not give the other a license to neglect to fulfill the requirements of the statute.
Evidence — Independent Contractor — Building Permit.
9. In an aetion under Employers’ Liability Act against defendant to recover damages for fatal injuries to a servant working on a barn, an application for a permit to construct the same in which defendant designated himself as builder is admissible as evidence of his relationship to owner.
From Multnomah: George R. Bagley, Judge.
Action by Isabella Cauldwell against the Bingham & Shelley Company, a corporation, Thomas Muir and Joseph Clossett, in which a judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Respondent, Bingham & Shelley Company, files motion to dismiss the appeal.
Motion denied.
In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice Harris.
The defendant Bingham & Shelley Company, a private corporation, moves to dismiss the appeal prosecuted by plaintiff. A judgment in favor of defendants was entered on July 29, 1915, and all that followed occurred in the same year. The plaintiff filed and served a notice of appeal on September 23, and on September 28, an undertaking on appeal was served and filed. A proposed bill of exceptions was tendered to and received by the trial judge on September 23. The bill of exceptions was settled and allowed on September 28 and it was filed with the county clerk on October 5. Certified copies of the judgment, notice of appeal and undertaking on appeal, constituting the technical transcript, were filed in this court on October 28, and on the same day the bill of exceptions was filed here. On November 17, pursuant to a written stipulation signed by the attorneys of record, the court extended the time for filing an abstract of record to and including November 29; and the abstract was filed on November 29.
Motion Denied.
Messrs. Sheppard ■& Brock and Messrs. Stapleton '& Sleight, for the motion.
Mr. P. R. Murdoch, Mr. R. E. Hall and Mr. Arthur I. Moulton, contra.
On constitutionality, application and effect of Federal Employers’ Liability Act, see notes in 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 38; L. R. A. 19150, 47.
Reporter.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harris
delivered the opinion of the court.
Within five days after the service of the undertaking on appeal the adverse party shall except to the sureties in the undertaking, or be deemed to have waived the right to except. From the expiration of the time allowed to except to the sureties, "the appeal shall be deemed perfected": Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 319, Laws of 1913. The fifth day after September 28, when the undertaking was filed, fell on Sunday, October 3, and consequently the appeal became perfected with the expiration of Monday, October 4: Pringle Falls Power Company v. Patterson, 65 Or. 474 (128 Pac. 820, 132 Pac. 527).
Unless the time is extended by an appropriate order of the court the appellant must file the transcript within thirty days after the appeal is perfected: Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 320 of Laws of 1913. The statute allows thirty days to file the transcript regardless of whether that period terminates before or after the commencement of a new term of court ; and when the transcript was filed on October 28, it was filed within thirty days after the appeal was perfected. The bill of exceptions was filed in time: West v. McDonald, 74 Or. 421 (144 Pac. 655).
The respondents formally consented to the delay in filing the printed abstract of record and cannot now complain. See St. Martin v. Hendershott, 82 Or. 58 (151 Pac. 706). The motion to dismiss is denied.
Motion Denied.