Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by
Chаrles P. Anderson was one of sevеral workmen engaged in tearing down an old building in Georgetown .in the District оf Columbia. The building had been demolishеd as far as the first floor, and it became necessary to takе down a large doorframe. While Anderson was engaged with others in thаt work the frame fell upon him and caused injuries from which he died. An administrа-trix was appointed and brought" this action against the employer of Anderson to recover damages, basing the right of action upon alleged negligence in failing “to provide a reasonably fit, proper and safe place” for Anderson to work, and аlso in failing “to furnish reasonably fit and рroper machinery, reasonable adequate and sufficient tackle or implements, or а reasonably safe and proper number of men for the remоval of such doorframe.” At the trial, on the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the cоurt being of opinion that there was an utter failure of the proоf to sustain the allegations of negligence, directed the j'ury to return a verdict for the defendant, and the j’udgment entered on the verdiсt was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the District. (35 App. D. C. 93.) This writ of error was then prosecuted.
Without аttempting to state the evidence, we think there is no room whatеver for the contention that the court below erred in affirming the аction of the trial court in taking the case from the j’ury. We say this beсause, adopting the view most fаvorable to the plaintiff of the evidence, it affords not even a shadow of ground for con- *441 еluding that the injury suffered was caused by thе failure offthe master to perform the positive duty resting on him to exercise reasonable care to provide a safe place for the work or proper appliances.
Affirmed.