Case by Gustav J. Penner against the Vinton Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error. The owner of a building in Detroit, which had previously been used for stores and offices, was remodeling it into a theater. To accomplish this, it was necessary to remove a large part of its interior.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1910
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““(1) The negligence which caused the plaintiff’s injury, if any, was that of an employe of Mr. Fisher, over whom the defendant had no control. The wall was not being torn down, but being built up. Defendant is not chargeable with negligence that any of these bricklayers might commit in throwing or dropping a brick from the building. “(2) The doctrine of a safe place has no application here. The place was safe, and was only made unsafe by the negligent act of a third party, for which the defendant was not responsible.””
¶1(after stating the facts). The instruction was correct, because:
¶21. The negligence which caused the plaintiff’s injury, if any, was that of an employe of Mr. Fisher, over whom the defendant had no control. The wall was not being torn down, but being built up. Defendant is not chargeable with negligence that any of these bricklayers might commit in throwing or dropping a brick from the building.
¶32. The doctrine of a safe place has no application here. The place was safe, and was only made unsafe by the negligent act of a third party, for which the defendant was not responsible.
