Negligence, In maintenance of real estate.
If the owner of a building employs a tinner and roofer to repair the roof of the building, the only access to which is by means of a ladder leading to a skylight, and this ladder belongs to a tenant in the building and is defective, and if, when the roofer was employed, he was told by the agent of the owner of the building that it was not necessary for him to bring his ladder and that he could "use the ladder up there," and if, while the roofer is ascending the ladder to get to the roof, the ladder breaks and the roofer is injured, in an action brought by him against the owner of the building for his injuries, it is for the jury to determine whether the defendant performed his duty of furnishing the plaintiff with a reasonably safe ladder to reach his place of work and whether by the exercise of reasonable diligence the defendant could have ascertained the defective condition of the ladder.
BRALEY, J.
The jury would have been warranted in finding on the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, that the ladder, the breaking of which caused his injuries, was the only means of access to the roof which the defendant had engaged the plaintiff to repair, and that by direction of the defendant's agent in charge of the premises and of the repairs the plaintiff used the ladder which had become so weakened and defective as to be unsafe and dangerous, a condition not obvious but ascertainable on inspection. Boccella v. Holt-Fairchild Co. 217 Mass. 161, 162.
It would follow from these findings that, having undertaken to provide the plaintiff with an appliance for the performance of the work, without the use of which the repairs could not be made, the defendant was bound to furnish a reasonably safe ladder; and it was for the jury to determine whether this duty had been discharged, or whether by the exercise of reasonable diligence the defect could have been ascertained and remedied. Blohm v. Boston Elevated Railway, 221 Mass. 390, 392, 393.
In accordance with the terms of the report the plaintiff is to have judgment in the sum of $2,500.
So ordered.