| Ala. | Nov 23, 1911
The plaintiff was injured by falling from the roof of a shed over a boiler, where he was at the time engaged in painting the roof. To do this work a ladder Avas used, which laid flat upon the roof, “and was held onto said roof by a cross-piece so nailed to the upper end thereof as to form a miter joint or angle therewith, which so fit over the comb of the roof of said shed as to hold said ladder thereon; said crosspiece extending the entire width of the upper end of said ladder.” One Sam Rolen, another employee of the defendant, was engaged with the plaintiff in doing the painting of said roof. There were tAvo ladders furnished by the defendant for doing the work, one for each man, and both similarly constructed for hooking
Evidently the sliding of the ladder from the roof Avas the result of its becoming detached from the comb, where the cross-piece, or “miter joint,” at the upper end of the ladder hooked over the comb, and that this was occasioned by the plaintiff’s getting upon it and putting it to a double service, and which Avas not intended or directed by the superintendent. The two ladders furnished by the defendant, as long as used as intended and directed by the superintendent, proved to be safe for
The plaintiff was a man, and presumably one of ordinary intelligence. The work of painting the roof in the manner in which it was directed to be done by the superintendent of the defendant was not attended with any dangers which were not open to a man of ordinary intelligence, and the failure of the superintendent to instruct and warn the plaintiff, therefore, would not constitute negligence.
There was no evidence of any defect in the ladder that proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. The mere fact alone that the ladder was broken by the fall from the roof to the ground with two men on it does not prove that it was defective or insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended. Moreover, the plaintiff, by his own voluntary act in getting on the light-weight ladder already occupied by Rolen, was the immediate cause of the accident that resulted in his injury.
The defendant, on the undisputed evidence, was entitled to the general charge requested, and the trial court committed no error in giving it.
The court sustained demurrers to counts á and 6 of the complaint. If there was error in this ruling, which, however, we do not decide, it was harmless error, since the result would have been the same if these counts had remained in. We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment, therefore, must be affirmed.
Affirmed.