Case ID: ny-st-rep_58/html/0130-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clement, G. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elizabeth S. Headefin, as Administratrix, etc., App’lt, v. G. Duane Cooper et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (Brooklyn City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 26,1893.)
    
    Master and servant—Fellow servant.
    A master, who has furnished additional appliances and delegated the duty of inspection to another, is not liable for tbe latter’s neglect to perform his duty.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant.
    
      
      Dailey, Bell <Sb Orane, for app’lt; Jaclcson S Burr, for resp’ts,
   Clement, G. J.

The plaintiff brought this action under the statute for the benefit of next of kin of Headefin, ceased, who was killed in the planing mill of the defendants, and at the time was in their employ. Headefin, of the age of 19 years, had worked in the mill for- a period of six months, and sustained fatal injuries by the breaking of a belt in use on a planer. Assuming that the belt was weak and rotten, such fact must have been known to Devlin, who had charge of the machine, and to the deceased. The master had provided other belts, and he had delegated the duty of inspection to Devlin, for whose neglect so to inspet the defendants were not liable. Cregan v. Marston, 126 N. Y. 568; 38 St. Rep., 428. If the belt was defective, and not fit for use, the defendants relied on Devlin to report its condition, and his acts were those of a fellow servant of Headefin. If the deceased knew the belt was rotten and unsafe, he accepted the service subject to the risk. Sweeney v. Berlin & Jones Envelope Co., 101 N. Y. 520. The statement of Headefin before his death, that he had reported it many times, would seem to show that if the belt was weak the deceased knew all about it. The case of Harley v. Buffalo Car Manufacturing Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 37; 38 St. Rep., 575, is not in point, as the plaintiff in that case “had been but a few days employed in the mill, and knew nothing of what was necessary to the safety of the machinery.”

Judgment affirmed, with costs.