Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co.
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors
59 Conn. 261 (1890)
- Written by Brian Meadors, JD
Facts
Smithwick (plaintiff) was loading ice into a building for Hall & Upson Co. (Hall) (defendant). Smithwick stood on a plank 15 feet above the ground. A foreman for Hall warned Smithwick not to work in a location at the end of the plank, saying the location was unsafe. Although the foreman did not say the particular reason for the location’s lack of safety, the reason was obvious. The unsafe location did not have safety railings, and the plank was slippery from melted ice. Smithwick chose to work in the location anyway. A wall of the building collapsed, bricks hit Smithwick, and Smithwick fell. Smithwick had no knowledge the wall could collapse. Most of Smithwick’s injuries resulted from his fall. Smithwick sued. Hall argued that Smithwick could not recover any more than nominal damages because Smithwick had been contributorily negligent. Hall further argued that Smithwick had taken the risk that he may fall, even though Smithwick’s fall happened in an unanticipated way. An appeal was made from the trial court to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Torrance, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
