Plаintiff, an employee of an independent contractor who had undertaken to install plumbing fixtures on defendаnt’s premises, was an invitee of defendant.
Pafford v. Construction Co.,
“The owner is not responsible to an independent contractor for injuries from defects or dangers of which the contractor knew or should havе known, ‘but if the defect or danger is hidden and known to the owner, and neither known to the contractor, nor such as hе ought to know, it is the duty of the owner to warn the contractor, and if he does not do this he is liable for resultant injury.’ ”
*389
Accord, Williams v. McSwain,
A manhole, 8 feet deep, in an area covered with broken concrete and other debris is, without any doubt, a lаtent danger. Taking plaintiff’s evidence as true, and giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, as we are required to do in passing upon a judgment of nonsuit,
Pridgen v. Uzzell,
The covering which defendant had provided for the manholе was made with “inch boards” nailed to 2x4’s. Between each of these slats was a space an inch and a half wide. This is not the type of cover one would ordinarily expect to find over an 8-foot manhole. Furthermore, it is a fair inference that dust from the broken concrete had sifted through the slats onto the cardboard cover over the hole sufficient to camouflage it and defeat the purpose of the wooden cоvering. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that defendant had taken reasonably adequate preсautions to warn the workmen who, it knew, would be on the floor and who might fall into the hole unless they knew of its presence. Hence, an issue of defendant’s actionable negligence arises for the determination of the jury unless plaintiff has proved himself out of court on the issue of contributory negligence.
In its First Further Answer and Defense defendant alleges that plaintiff was contributorily negligent in that (1) before going upon the premises upon which he was to work, plaintiff failed to examine the blueprint which he had in his possession and which disclosed the presence of the manhole, and (2) “he removed a plywood covering and frame which had been placed over the hole and stepped on the cardboard without undertaking to discover what was thereunder or for what рurpose it was there.”
Plaintiff argues that the slatted covering, at most only 4 inches high, appeared to him to be just another “piece of stuff,” i.e., debris, covering the area; that the dusty cardboard did not stand out sufficiently on the rubble-covered floor to attract his attention; that the cardboard itself both constituted and concealed a trap rather than warned of one; and that, as a result, it fell into the hole with him. He further contends that the рrimary purpose of the blueprint was to show him where to locate the fixtures he had come to install and not to warn of hazards; that at *390 the time he fell into the hole he had had no need to examine the blueprint.
We can no more say with reference to the issue of contributory negligence than we could as to the issue оf negligence that only one conclusion can reasonably be drawn. The determination of both issues must be fоr the jury.
Since the case goes back for a complete trial we note that in the trial below the court, over objection, permitted defendant’s counsel on cross-examination to elicit from plaintiff testimony that he had received Workmen’s Compensation benefits. This was error. By statute, G.S. 97-10.2(e), the amount of compensation and other benefits paid to or for the employee on account of the injury for which he is seеking damages is not admissible in evidence in his suit against a third party.
Redding v. Braddy,
If the jury should reаch the issue of damages, plaintiff will be entitled to recover the amount which will fairly compensate him for his injuriеs as if he had received no payments under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Lovette v. Lloyd, supra; Rogers v. Construction Co.,
Reversed.