[DOWNLOAD] "Edward L. Howe & Another v. Marshall" by Appeals Court of Massachusetts # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Edward L. Howe & Another v. Marshall
- Author : Appeals Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 13, 1995
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury. Negligence, Construction work, Scaffolding. Evidence, Expert opinion, Income from collateral source. The general contractor (Marshall) appeals from a judgment in favor of an injured employee (Howe) of a subcontractor (Bay State) and Howe's spouse (for loss of consortium). Howe was injured when he fell from a scaffolding, damaging his knees on a concrete floor. The scaffolding support was six or seven feet wide, topped with sixteen-foot planks, leaving a considerable overhang, and the planks see-sawed when the plaintiff stepped out too far beyond the scaffolding support. Howe, who received workers' compensation from Bay State, sued Marshall for negligence, and Marshall brought a third-party complaint against Bay State alleging negligence on its part. Howe's evidence against Marshall had two themes: that Marshall's employer had erected the dangerous scaffolding, and that Marshall's safety supervisor on the project had no training as such and did not understand the applicable standards and regulations concerning safety in the workplace. Marshall denied that its employees had erected the scaffolding, attributing its construction to Bay State's employees. It also sought to show that its safety supervisor had observed the scaffolding for the first time only seconds before Howe's fall and had been in the process of bringing the danger to attention. Finally, Marshall attempted to show that Howe's injuries were not of the magnitude he professed. In the Howes' action, the jury found him not negligent and returned verdicts of $925,000 for Howe and $100,000 for his spouse. In Marshall's action against Bay State, the jury assessed responsibility ninety percent to Marshall and ten percent to Bay State. The Judge denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial, and for a remittitur. Marshall's appeal raises three points.