Court Opinion

ID: 9660526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:15:12.288897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.259833
License: Public Domain

Nubssle, Cb. J.
I concur in tbe result reached in tbe foregoing opinion written by Judge Morris, and in tbe syllabus of tbe points adjudicated.
Tbe plaintiff, a member of tbe defendant fraternal organization, volunteered to assist in decorating a ball to be used by tbe defendant. Tbe defendant provided a stepladder for bis use. Tbis was an ordinary stepladder such as is described in Webster’s New International Dictionary as “A portable set of steps, esp. one with flat, comparatively broad steps in place of rungs and with a frame hinged to tbe back for steadying.” The defendant bad owned this ladder for about 16 years. It was in general use and bad been used about defendant’s premises by many of its members. It was of light wood construction. Tbe evidence as to its condition is that it was old, rickety, and wobbly, as was apparent to anyone seeing or using it. “Its joints were loose and they squeaked and wiggled when you walked on them.” It was 12 or 14 feet in height when not spread. If a user stepped on tbe upper steps and moved around it swayed somewhat and required someone to stand beside it and steady it. It bad been repaired on occasion by being renailed or having its screws tightened or both. It was given to tbe defendant by one of its members who was a trucker. He bad bought it from a customer for whom he did some moving, and the occasion for his buying it was that it was too long to be carried in tbe moving van. It was never used in bis business.
Plaintiff used tbis ladder in stapling streamers to a wire stretched 12 or 15 feet above tbe floor across the ball that was being decorated. Before using tbe ladder, plaintiff tested it to see if it would stand firmly. He bad used it for an hour or thereabouts without accident. It then became necessary for him to climb one step higher than before. He says that tbis step was loose and turned under bis foot, causing him to lose bis balance and fall. Tbe step was six or eight feet from the floor. *372There is no donbt but that he suffered very serious, injuries from this fall. When he fell, he fell to one side and the ladder tipped over in the opposite direction. The ladder itself was not available for inspection at the time of the trial.
The case was tried to a jury. Plaintiff had a verdict. On motion made, the trial court ordered a new trial on the ground “that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in that the evidence does not show that the defendant was negligent, or that the plaintiff was^ free from contributory negligence;” and this appeal is' from that order.
The defendant contends that the simple tool doctrine controls in the instant case. That this ladder was a simple tool. That its condition was as discernible to the plaintiff or to any other user as it was to any of the officers of the defendant, none of whom had particularly examined it. That therefore there was no actionable negligence on its part. .
I am of the opinion that whether or not the ladder be considered a simple tool, the mere fact that defendant provided it for plaintiff’s use without particularly pointing out to him its condition does not constitute actionable negligence. The plaintiff was a member of the defendant organization. He volunteered his services. He was acting under no compulsion. If the condition of the ladder was as discernible to him on such examination as any reasonably prudent person would give to it before using it, as it was to any of the officers of the defendant, then there can be no liability for negligence on the- defendant’s part. The plaintiff was no zany. He was an intelligent, capable, and experienced man. This is evidenced by the fact that he had risen from telegraph operator and small station agent to the important position of train dispatcher.
The established rule in this state is that whether a motion for a new trial shall be granted or denied is largely discretionary with the trial judge, and unless there is an abuse of discretion on his part, his order granting or denying it will not be disturbed. And this is particularly so ' when a new trial is granted. In fact, in some jurisdictions an order granting a new trial is not appealable. See Martin v. Parkins, 55 ND 339, 213 NW 574, and authorities cited therein. Viewed in the light *373of the foregoing rule, I am of the opinion that the record is such that the order appealed from should be affirmed.