Title: Blount Brothers Construction Company v. Rose
Citation: 149 So. 2d 821
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 29, 1962

149 So. 2d 821 (1962)
BLOUNT BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.
Daisy J. ROSE et al.
8 Div. 12.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 29, 1962.
Rehearing Denied February 7, 1963.
*824 Eyster &amp; Eyster, Decatur, for appellant.
Harris &amp; Harris, Decatur, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal in this case arises out of a judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $60,000.00, in a suit filed by the widow and minor son of the deceased, William Earl Rose, who at the time of his death was employed by subcontractors of appellant to assist in the installation of plumbing and heating fixtures in a building under construction at Redstone Arsenal in Madison County.
The deceased met his death under circumstances which the plaintiffs claim were the proximate result of wanton conduct on the part of appellant (defendant in the Circuit Court). More details surrounding the death of Mr. Rose, so far as they are pertinent to the assignments of error that are argued by appellant, will later be delineated in this opinion.
This assignment charges the trial court with error in overruling appellant's demurrer to Count E of the complaint. All other counts in the complaint were eliminated by the plaintiffs at the close of the evidence. Only those grounds of demurrer adequately argued by appellant in its brief are entitled under the law to be here considered.
The Reporter will set out the complaint.
Appellant, in its brief, directs the attention of this court to twelve grounds of demurrer and omits adequate argument as to other assigned grounds. We will consider only the twelve grounds that have been argued. Linville v. Crittenden, 272 Ala. 630, 133 So.2d 381[4, 5]; Vol. 2A, Ala.Digest, Appeal and Error.
The contention of appellant in its argument is that Count E is deficient because it undertakes to allege facts which at their most constitute simple negligence and are insufficient to support the wanton allegation near the end of the complaint, citing Birmingham Ry., Light &amp; Power Co. v. Brown, 150 Ala. 327, 43 So. 342.
*825 This court, from time to time, using different phraseology, has stated the constituent and essential elements of wanton conduct. Simon v. Goodman, 244 Ala. 422, 13 So. 2d 679; Dean v. Adams, 249 Ala. 319, 321, 30 So. 2d 903, 904; Griffin Lumber Company v. Harper, 247 Ala. 616, 25 So. 2d 505, 506; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So. 2d 193, 194; Wilhite v. Webb, 253 Ala. 606, 46 So. 2d 414. We quote briefly from Griffin Lumber Company v. Harper, supra, as follows:
The complaint alleges: (1) that the defendant owed Rose a duty; (2) that the defendant breached this duty; (3) that defendant knew and was conscious that a breach of this duty would likely cause serious injury or death to Rose or his coworkers; and that (4) notwithstanding said knowledge, and as a result of defendant's wantonness in allowing such unsafe conditions to remain uncorrected Rose fell and was killed as a proximate result of such wantonness.
The argued grounds of demurrer fail to point out or particularize wherein the complaint fails to aver the constituent or essential elements of wantonness. If the complaint is subject to demurrer on the ground that it undertakes to allege the quo modo, but is insufficient in that respect because it does not allege the defendant, its agents or servants, notwithstanding their knowledge of conditions, consciously and intentionally, with reckless indifference to the consequences, failed to correct the alleged unsafe conditions, we have to observe that no such ground was assigned in the several grounds which defendant argues on this appeal. In the absence of this assignment, we cannot consider this omission if it existed. Buffalo Rock Co. v. Davis, 228 Ala. 603, 154 So. 556(8). The complaint is not subject to demurrer on any of the grounds assigned and argued in this appeal. Linville v. Crittenden, supra.
This assignment charges the trial court with error in refusing defendant's written charge, which, according to its text, is affirmative in purpose with hypothesis. Delineation of some of the evidence at this point is appropriate.
Appellant entered into a written contract with the United States Government to construct a shop building (No. 3) at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. The building as constructed is 300 or 315 feet long, north and south, and 60 or 65 feet wide. The contract included painting, and electrical, plumbing and heating installations.
Appellant subcontracted the electrical work to T. D. Little Electric Company, the plumbing and heating installations to Nichols Plumbing and Heating Company, and the painting to someone else. Mr. Rose, at the time of his death, was an employee of Nichols and was the foreman of the crew engaged in installing the heaters.
The heaters were being attached to the roof of the building with suspension rods that lowered them to about 30 feet above the concrete floor of the building. The particular heater, weighing 800 to 1000 pounds, which Mr. Rose and his coworkers were installing, was right close to the east end of the building.
The heaters were lifted from the floor to the point of suspension by a winch on a truck and they first came to rest on a scaffold that was supported by an interior *826 crane within the building. The crane was a permanent adjunct to the building.
The crane consisted of two steel girders or eye-beams extending east and west from one wall to the other. On the surface of these girders or beams was a slightly elevated track for the operation of the hoist east and west. This hoist was not being used at the time. On each side of the tracks was a flange approximately eight inches wide. These beams were separated approximately four to four and one-half feet.
A steel beam or girder, with a track on top, was permanently anchored to the west wall of the building, the same height as the beams extending east and west. A like beam was also anchored to the east wall at the same height. The east and west beams had wheels at their respective ends that operated on these north and south tracks. Thus the crane could be moved north and south from one end of the building to the other, while the hoist on the crane could be moved east and west from one wall to the other.
On the south side of the crane was a catwalk running east and west the entire length of the crane. There was no catwalk on the north or opposite side of the crane. Running the entire length of the catwalk was a shaft or rod that could be operated by a motor attached thereto or manually with a wrench to move the crane north and south, thus making the crane available for use anywhere in the building.
Appellant was importuned by the painting, electrical, and plumbing subcontractors to erect a scaffold on the crane for use of the men working for the subcontractors. Responding to this request, appellant directed its carpenters to build the scaffold which they did.
The scaffold was about four feet high above the eye-beams that ran east and west and rested thereon. Substantial uprights were used. An upright rested on the inside flange of one beam, and another on the opposite side on the other beam. They were spread in sections about 10 feet apart for the entire length of the beams. Each section was braced on the east side as well as on the north and south sides. The thickness of the braces was three-fourths of an inch and some one inch. The braces on the north and south sides were firmly nailed to the top and bottom of the posts in an "X" pattern. The braces on the east side of the uprights were firm and secure. Firmly anchored to the top of the vertical posts or uprights was a horizontal member the same dimensions as the uprights. The scaffold was sturdy.
On top of the horizontal supports were some pick boards or platforms. Appellant did not own them or put them into place. These boards served as a flooring and could be moved from one point to the other on the scaffold. They were long enough to more than cover one section of the scaffold. Each pick board (three or four in number) resembled a ladder with narrow boards nailed to the horizontal steps of the ladder. There were some cracks between some of the planks on the pick boards which, as we understand from the evidence, were covered with plyboard. The pick boards were placed on the scaffold in such a manner that the south edge was practically flush with the south side of the scaffold, while on the north side the board was not flush with the edge. There was a factual dispute between plaintiffs' evidence and defendant's witnesses, or some of them, as to the distance that the board lacked being flush with the north side of the scaffold. The defendant contended that the space was 24 inches, while plaintiffs contended the space was considerably less.
A further tendency of plaintiffs' evidence was that the end of the scaffold was practically up against the east wall, with the end of the pick boards protruding beyond the east horizontal member upon which they rested. There was agreement that the model crane used by both parties before the jury did not accurately reflect the distance the end of the crane was from the east wall nor *827 the exact position of the uprights from the end of the crane.
The evidence of the parties was in conflict as to whether or not the pick boards were fastened to the horizontal members upon which they rested.
Plaintiffs' evidence tended to show that a worker on the north side of the crane, where the decedent was when he fell, could not safely go around the east end of the crane to get to the south side, because of the close proximity of the crane to the wall and the presence of the overlapping pick boards. Proceeding this route, plaintiffs' evidence tended to show that the worker would have to walk on the end of the crane close to the wall, and in so doing, would have to stoop low to get under the end of the protruding pick boards, while at the same time would have to put each foot on a very narrow ledge of steel on the crane while straddling a gaping hole 24 inches wide. Thus, contended the plaintiffs, this passage was more dangerous than across the scaffold. Defendant offered evidence that was in conflict with the plaintiffs' evidence as to some of these physical factors and the alleged danger.
The evidence of plaintiffs further tended to show that after the heater was lifted from the floor and came to rest on the surface of the scaffold, it had to be lifted two or three inches from the surface by a "come-a-long" hoist, hand-operated, to the end that it could be put in a metal cradle fastened to bars suspended from the roof.
The cradle consisted of two iron bars, running north and south under the heater, that were fastened at each end by a nut or bolt to the suspension bars. Mr. Rose and his coworker worked from the north side to fasten the cradle bolts, while two other employees worked likewise on the south side. Plaintiffs offered evidence that the presence of two men on each side was necessary according to the instructions of the superintendent. Defendant offered testimony that there was no necessity for the deceased and his companion to operate from the north side. There was a marked conflict in this testimony. Also, there was a conflict of the testimony as to the weight of each channel.
It also appears from plaintiffs' evidence, and from some of defendant's witnesses, that Mr. Rose, at the time he fell, was attempting to get on the scaffold from his perch on the eight or ten-inch flange on the north side of the steel beam. In so doing, he put his right foot on the top brace and his left foot on the lower brace, both to the left of the center. While in this position, he reached for the pick board and either lost his grip or failed to grab the board. He fell forward over the top of the braces into the space or void between the cross braces and the pick board nearest to him. He plunged 30 feet to the concrete flooring, the impact causing his death.
Appellees' contention is that appellant, defaulting in its contractual duty, wantonly failed to provide a reasonably safe place for Mr. Rose and his coworkers to work while installing the heaters. They allege "that there was no sufficient footstep or means of access from the crane to the scaffold and no sufficient hold to use in climbing from the crane to the scaffold so that a person could climb from the crane to the scaffold with reasonable safety," and as a proximate result of the alleged wantonness in "allowing such unsafe conditions to remain uncorrected," Mr. Rose was killed as alleged.
Appellees offered in evidence a copy of defendant's contract with the United States Government for the erection of the building and the installation of some appurtenances and accessories. Also, plaintiffs were allowed to introduce in evidence a manual of safety rules which appellant, according to appellees, agreed to observe in the performance of its contract. Both were abridged in the transcript of this appeal pursuant to an approved agreement.
*828 We quote several sections or provisions which we deem pertinent to the issues in this case:
Articles II(a), III(a), and VI(a) and (b) of the subcontract provide as follows:
The manual "Safety Requirements" referred to in Section 29 above, provides as follows:
Evidence was adduced from appellees' witnesses, and from some of the others who testified, that there was no way to mount the scaffold from the south side except by a stepladder or the cross braces. The tendency of plaintiffs' evidence was that there was no safe way to mount the scaffold from the cross braces on the north side. There was a conflict of testimony between the parties as to whether or not any ladder was on the south side when Mr. Rose fell. As to when the ladder was there, if at all, was the subject of conflicting testimony. There was no evidence that there was a stepladder or other means, except the braces available on the north side, to mount the north side at the point from which Mr. Rose fell.
Mr. Berrey O. Morgan, Project Superintendent for appellant, testified as a witness for defendant that he had been through the building while the heaters were being installed. On cross-examination, he testified as follows:
"Q Had you seen how they were installing the heaters?
"Q Whom did you have designated for that purpose?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q And they did that?
"A They did that."
This witness also testified that a stepladder was provided when the scaffold was built, to be used in mounting the scaffold; that the ladder was furnished by the subcontractors; that he saw it the day the men started to work; that to the best of his knowledge it remained there all the time, and that it was still there the day of the *830 accident. This witness also testified that no one was supposed to mount the scaffold anywhere except from the south side, and that there was no means provided for mounting except on the south side. He also stated that mounting the scaffold via the stepladder was safe; also that it was locked behind the shaft on the catwalk and could not be moved.
Evidence of this witness contradicted that of appellees as to the unsafe conditions imperiling a worker going from the north side to the south side via the east end of the crane. Appellant offered other evidence, which we will not undertake to delineate, that contradicted plaintiffs' evidence in several areas of contentions between the parties.
We hold that the provisions of appellant's contract with the government, so far as they imposed upon defendant the duty to furnish safety devices for the project, were for the benefit of Mr. Rose and his fellow workers on this project, and this action will lie so far as it arises out of the breach of this contract. Plaintiffs could sue in tort for damages arising out of the alleged breach. The contract and the law imposed the duty on appellant to provide a reasonably safe place for Mr. Rose and his fellow workers to work on this project. Tennessee Coal, Iron &amp; R. Co. v. Sizemore, 258 Ala. 344, 62 So. 2d 459; Evans v. Patterson, 269 Ala. 250, 112 So. 2d 194. We said in Tennessee Coal, Iron &amp; R. Co. v. Sizemore, supra:
Wantonness as charged must rest upon appellant's or its servant's or agent's actual knowledge, but such knowledge need not be shown by direct proof. It may be made to appear like any other fact, by showing circumstances, as in this case at issue, from which the fact of knowledge is a legitimate inference. Birmingham Electric Co. v. Mann, 226 Ala. 379, 147 So. 165.
Under our decisions, wantonness of the deceased Rose is not a defense to this complaint. Nor is assumption of risk, which is in the nature of wantonness, a good defense. Foreman v. Dorsey Trailers, 256 Ala. 253, 54 So. 2d 499.
Wantonness may arise from knowledge that persons, though not seen, are likely to be in positions of danger, and with conscious disregard of known conditions of danger and in violations of law, disaster occurs. Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13.
It was a jury question as to whether or not there was any necessity for Mr. Rose to work on the north side of the crane where he went to put the channel under the heater and fasten the bolts. The heater protruded about six inches on each side of the surface upon which it was *831 slightly elevated. One of the witnesses helping to install the heater testified that four could not have worked on one side at the same time; that the superintendent saw the way they were doing it and they had to do it that way. The facts in the case of Barger v. Oswalt, 239 Ala. 289, 194 So. 884, cited by appellant, did not show a necessity for the plaintiff, Barger, to take his foot and push a log into position before the saw. Barger's foot slipped and was caught in the revolving saw. The necessity of Mr. Rose and his coworker taking their position at or near the north side to fasten the channel on the north side was for the jury.
The evidence in this case and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom presented issues of fact for the decision of the jury. The refusal of the affirmative charge with hypothesis requested by the defendant was not error. Southern Building &amp; Loan Ass'n v. Bryant, 225 Ala. 527, 144 So. 367.
Assignment of Error 60.
This assignment presents for review the written charge of defendant, refused by the court, the text of which is as follows:
This charge is referred to as the "sole proximate cause" charge. It is not a defense to a wanton count. The jury under the charge would be required to consider the initial negligence of Mr. Rose, and if true, this negligence would be made a bar to a recovery for wantonness alleged in the complaint. The initial negligence of Mr. Rose, if a fact, would not preclude recovery against the defendant for affirmative or omissive wantonness. Seitz v. Heep, 243 Ala. 372, 10 So. 2d 148; Boyette v. Bradley, 211 Ala. 370, 100 So. 647. Wantonness is no defense to wantonness. Foreman v. Dorsey Trailers, supra.
The refused charges for defendant, subjects of the above assignments, are based on negligence or wantonness on the part of the deceased Rose as a defense. They were properly refused for these reasons if for no other. Seitz v. Heep, supra; Boyette v. Bradley, supra; and Foreman v. Dorsey Trailers, supra.
Appellant contends here that the court erred in permitting witness Cramer, for the plaintiffs, to testify that he was shocked for a minute after Mr. Rose fell from the scaffold.
The reaction of the witness to the tragedy as stated before the jury was not calculated to influence the jury in its deliberations, but if so, was without injury to the defendant. Supreme Court Rule 45. The jury heard the evidence as to the nature of the injuries that Mr. Rose suffered from the fall. They had their own reaction from the evidence essentially free and independent of the statement of the witness that he was shocked.
Witness Cramer, for the plaintiffs, was allowed to testify, over the objection of defendant, that Mr. Rose was stretched out, blood was running from his ears, and his eyes were set in his head.
This evidence was permissible. Taylor v. Lewis, 206 Ala. 338, 89 So. 581. There this court held:
Plaintiffs' counsel, over objection and exception of defendant, argued to the jury:
After the close of the oral charge of the court to the jury, counsel, the author of the remarks, made known to the court that he desired to withdraw this argument, and asked the court to charge the jury "to pay no attention to this."
Thereupon, the court charged the jury as follows:
After the completion of this judicial observation to the jury, the following took place:
"Now, at the * * * TO MR. EYSTER: Do you have something?
"MR. BILL EYSTER: It was that line of argument.
A similar argument was made in the case of Daniel Construction Co. v. Pierce, 270 Ala. 522, 120 So. 2d 381. There the plaintiff observed before the jury:
The trial court there sustained the objection of the defendant. The trial judge gave adequate instructions to the jury not to consider these remarks. This court held that the argument was eradicable from the minds of the jury, and that the instructions of the court not to consider the argument were sufficient.
In the case at bar, we hold that the court's instructions were adequate to eradicate the effect of this argument. We pretermit any consideration of the contentions of appellees that the argument, although withdrawn, was in reply to argument of counsel for defendant.
After completion of the oral charge, before the jury retired, defendant excepted to an excerpt of the court's oral charge:
Any tendency of the above excerpt to mislead the jury was adequately corrected in a timely manner by the court. The instructions to correct were full and complete.
We have read all the evidence, covering 300 pages of transcript paper. The appellant and appellees have submitted elaborate and comprehensive briefs that evidence exceptional diligence and effort to present the issues and law to this court. Further delineation of the evidence would unduly prolong and extend this opinion.
The damages recoverable under this action pursuant to Title 7, § 123, Code of Alabama 1940, are strictly punitive. See also Title 26, § 312, Code of Alabama 1940, as amended. They are based on the culpability of defendant, the enormity of the wrongful act, and the necessity of deterring similar wrongs. Juries, in the assessment of damages, are given much discretion, but not an unbridled or arbitrary one. The discretion so exercised must be honest, legal and sound.
A verdict supported by competent evidence, as here, will not be set aside because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion. Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 221 Ala. 273, 128 So. 228 (12). Verdicts are presumed to be correct and no ground of a new trial is more carefully scrutinized and rigidly limited, than that the verdict is against the evidence. Smith v. Smith, 254 Ala. 404, 48 So. 2d 546 (6). Where the presiding judge refused to grant a new trial, presumption in favor of the verdict is strengthened. Smith v. Smith, supra, (7).
Finding no prejudicial error in the record before us, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
*834 The foregoing opinion was prepared by B. W. Simmons, Supernumerary Circuit Judge, while serving on the Supreme Court at the request of the Chief Justice, and was adopted by the Court as its opinion.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN, MERRILL, and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
Opinion corrected.
Application for rehearing overruled.