## Facts

- Smithwick, an employee of Hall & Upson Co., helped store ice in a brick building while working on a raised platform about 15 feet above the ground.
- The platform had a protective railing on the west side up to a doorway; the area in front of and east of the doorway had no guard or railing.
- The foreman assigned Smithwick to the guarded area and instructed him not to go to the unguarded east end because it was unsafe.
- The foreman’s warning concerned obvious dangers: the platform’s narrowness, lack of railing, and the possibility of slipping or misstepping, made worse by ice.
- After the foreman left, Smithwick went to the unguarded east end and worked there.
- A portion of the brick wall collapsed, struck Smithwick, and caused him to fall from the platform; most injuries resulted from the fall.
- Smithwick had no knowledge or warning that the wall might collapse, and that risk was not contemplated when the foreman warned him.
- The trial court found that the defendant’s negligence caused or contributed to Smithwick’s injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether Smithwick’s disobedience in working on an obviously dangerous, unguarded portion of the platform constituted contributory negligence barring substantial damages when the injury resulted from an unexpected wall collapse caused by the defendant’s negligence.

## Decision

- The court held that Smithwick’s conduct was not contributory negligence that barred substantial recovery.
- Smithwick was entitled to substantial damages, not merely nominal damages.
- The defendant’s negligence regarding the wall’s unsafe condition was treated as the proximate cause of the injury, while Smithwick’s disobedience was not a proximate contributing cause of the harm that occurred.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence bars substantial recovery only if the plaintiff’s fault is a proximate contributing cause of the injury.
- A plaintiff’s assumption of, or exposure to, one obvious hazard (e.g., slipping or falling from an unguarded platform) does not bar recovery for injury produced by a different, independent hazard (e.g., structural collapse) not known to the plaintiff and not within the scope of the risk he accepted.
- Mere presence at the place of injury due to the plaintiff’s conduct may be a condition of the accident, but it is not contributory negligence unless it bears a legally sufficient causal connection to the specific injurious event.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiff’s disobedience related to a different, known risk than the wall-collapse danger that actually produced the injury, his conduct was not a proximate contributing cause, and he could recover substantial damages for injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence.


Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co., 59 Conn. 261 (1890)