Combustion Engineering Co. v. Hunsberger
171 Md. 16, 1936 Md. LEXIS 25, 187 A. 825 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mere falling of a simple tool at a construction site is not sufficient, in itself, to create a presumption of negligence, as such an event is a common and expected incident of construction work.
Facts:
- Combustion Engineering Company and McNamara & Co. were two subcontractors working on the reconstruction of a boiler room.
- Walter Durdella, an employee of Combustion Engineering, was working inside an iron air preheater approximately 30-35 feet above the basement floor.
- The plaintiff, an employee of McNamara & Co., was working in the open basement directly underneath the area where Durdella was working.
- Durdella was using a hammer and a metal wedge, about ten inches long, to force metal plates into position for welding.
- While Durdella struck the wedge with a hammer, it unexpectedly jumped out, fell down through the preheater, and struck the plaintiff on the head, causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- The injured employee of McNamara & Co. sued Combustion Engineering Company in a trial court for negligence.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court denied Combustion Engineering's motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the mere fact of the falling wedge constituted evidence of negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- Combustion Engineering Company, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mere fact that a tool fell from a height at a construction site, injuring a worker below, create a presumption of negligence on the part of the worker who dropped it?
Opinions:
Majority - Bond, C. J.
No, the mere fact that a tool fell does not create a presumption of negligence. The court reasoned that unlike objects falling onto a public highway, the falling of small tools within a construction site is an expected incident of the work that can occur despite all reasonable precautions. To presume negligence from such an event would be to demand a level of perfection that does not exist in human labor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply because the event is not one that ordinarily occurs only because of negligence. Therefore, the plaintiff had the burden to produce specific evidence of a negligent act or omission, which they failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the context of construction site accidents. It establishes that certain events, like the falling of a common tool, are considered inherent risks of the trade rather than automatic proof of negligence. The ruling raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in such cases, requiring them to prove a specific act of carelessness rather than relying on the accident itself. It also underscores that agreements between subcontractors to coordinate safety can serve as a valid defense, shifting responsibility for worker safety.
