Case ID: misc_12/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daly, Oh. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Joseph Richards, Respondent, v. George A. Hayes, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas
    General Term,
    April, 1895.)
    It is not the duty of the master, hy himself or another, to save the servant harmless from imperfect or inadequate machinery, means or appliances, and from unskillful or incompetent fellow-servants of any grade; he is liable only for negligence in the omission of reasonable care in the business in which the servant is employed.
    
      Appeal by defendant from °a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of the jury, and order denying a motion for a new trial.
    The action was by an employee against his employer for injuries received from the alleged insecure, improper and unskillful construction of a scaffolding, upon which plaintiff was working while engaged in lathing the sides of an elevator shaft, in the building on the northeast corner of Broadway and Eighteenth street, on July 11, 1891, and the improper, and inadequate material of which the scaffolding was made and fastened, by reason of which it gave way and turned down, so that plaintiff was thrown to the bottom of the shaft.
    
      Alex T. Goodwin, for appellant.
    
      Dwight 8. Mason, for respondent.
   Daly, Oh. J.

It is not necessary to inquire what difference, if any, there is between the facts in this case and in that of a fellow-workman of the plaintiff, who was injured at the same time and from" the same cause, and whose judgment against the defendant for damages we reversed upon appeal, upon the ground that no negligence on the employer’s part was established, but that plaintiff’s injury was the result of his own or his fellow-workman’s choice of the implement which he xised. Oellerich v. Hayes, 8 Misc. Rep. 211; 59 N. Y. St. Repr. 221; 28 N. Y. Supp. 519. This judgment will have to be reversed for error in charging, at plaintiff’s request, a proposition which cannot be defended upon reason or authority. The court had already instructed the jury at plaintiff’s request that the rule is unqualified that a master is bound to use all reasonable care, diligence and caution in providing for the safety of those in his employ and furnishing for their use in his work safe, sound and suitable tools, implements, appliances and machinery in the prosecution thereof and keeping the same in repair. This is the master’s duty, and he cannot exempt himself from liability for this omission by delegating its performance to another, or, having required work to be done, by omitting precautions and inquiries as to the manner of its performance,” and had also charged in continuation, at plaintiff’s request, seven other propositions, enlarging upon the principle in every conceivable particular. Finally, at plaintiff’s request, the court charged the next proposition as follows: “ The duty of the master to the servant is to the result that the servant shall be under no risks from imperfect or inadequate machinery or other material means and appliances, or from unskillful or incompetent fellow-servants of any grade. It is for the master to do by himself or by-some other.” To this instruction the defendant duly excepted.

This last instruction, following those that preceded it, summed up the whole duty of the master as undertaking to insure the servant from all risks from the perils named, and whatever impression the jury,received from the prior instructions as to the master’s duty being confined to reasonable care, diligence and caution was thus explained to be that he was by himself or another to save the servant harmless from imperfect or inadequate machinery, means and appliances and from unskillful or incompetent fellow-servants of any grade. That is not the master’s duty. He is liable only for negligence. 14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 813 et seq. His negligence is the. omission of reasonable care in the business in which his servants are employed. Slater v. Jewett, 85 N. Y. 61. The test of his liability is not whether he neglected something he could have done, but whether he is reasonably prudent and careful. Leonard v. Collins, 70 N. Y. 90.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Bookstaver and Bischoef, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.