Case Name: Reinig v. Broadway R. Co.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-06-25
Citations: 1 N.Y.S. 907
Docket Number: 
Parties: Reinig v. Broadway R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 1
Pages: 907–908

Head Matter:
Reinig v. Broadway R. Co.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
June 25, 1888.)
Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Risks of Employment.
Plaintiff, employed by defendant as a changer of horses, was directed by a fellow-servant to shovel snow off the roof of defendant’s barn, and, after doing so, in descending the ladder, jumped off to one side to avoid a drift, and fell into a skylight concealed by the snow. Held, that defendant was not obliged to inform plaintiff as to the existence of the skylight, and, having assumed the risks of his employment, the latter cannot recover for the injuries sustained.1
1 As to the servant’s knowledge of danger, and his assumption of the risks of his employment, see the exhaustive note to Rogen v. Enoch Morgan’s Son’s Co., ante, 273.
Appeal from circuit court.
Action for personal injuries, by Michael Reinig against the Broadway Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
There is nothing in the evidence which varies the general rule that an employe assumes all the risks of the employment. Nothing was defective as between master and servant.' The plaintiff was told to clean a roof from, snow, and, after doing the work, on-his return to the ground, to avoid a snow-drift at the bottom of the ladder, he j umped off on the side of the ladder, and fell into a skylight in a roof, which was so covered with snow that it could not be seen. The plaintiff was a changer of horses, and when he shoveled off the roof he took the risks of that employment also. 2 Thomp. Neg. 976. The plaintiff performed the service at the direction of one Eckert, a co-employe. If there was a duty upon the part of Eckert to warn the plaintiff against a hidden sky-light it was a neglect of a co-employe, and no action is maintainable against the common master. There are many cases cited in support of the action, and there are detached portions of opinions which seem to condemn masters for not protecting the servant against concealed dangers. Hone of these, on examination, I think, call upon a master to notify a servant against a sky-light in a roof suddenly covered by a heavy fall of snow. The'judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.