Case Name: GINSBERG v. WOLF et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-12-05
Citations: 144 N.Y.S. 678
Docket Number: 
Parties: GINSBERG v. WOLF et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 144
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
(159 App. Div. 412.)
GINSBERG v. WOLF et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 5, 1913.)
1. Master and Servant (§ 168 )—Injuries to Servant—Fellow Servants— Negligence.
Plaintiff was injured by the alleged negligence of his fellow servant in failing to properly perform his work. Such work did not call for any special skill, and the fellow servant was quite able to do it properly, and did so in a great majority of cases, but was inclined to carelessness. Held, that such carelessness, if the proximate cause of the accident, was not the master’s negligence in failing to provide plaintiff with a competent and skillful fellow servant.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 334, 335, 337-340, 349; Dec. Dig. § 168.*]
2. Master and Servant (§ 217*)—Injuries to Servant—Apparent Dangers —Assumed Risk.
Where the dangers, incident to the work in which plaintiff was employed, were perfectly apparent, and he testified that he was aware of them and he had been warned of the danger by one of the defendants, plaintiff assumed the risk.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 574r-600; Dec. Dig. § 217.*]
Ingraham, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Harry Ginsberg, an infant, by Rachel Ginsberg, his guardian ad litem, against Harry Wolf and another, doing business under the name of New York Embossing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying defendants’ motion for new trial, they appeal.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
See, also, 78 Mise. Rep. 563, 139 N. Y. Supp. 920.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
W. L. Glenney, of New York City, for appellants.
E. Clyde Sherwood, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The only negligence charged against the defendants is that:
They "failed and neglected to furnish plaintiff with a competent and skillful fellow servant to assist him in said work, and negligently furnished him with an incompetent and unskillful fellow servant in said work, and neglected to instruct plaintiff in the proper and safe method in which to perform said work for which he was engaged and to warn him of the dangers incident thereto not patent to his observation."
The evidence is insufficient to support a finding of negligence upon either of these counts. The work which plaintiff's fellow servant was called upon to do was not such as called for any special skill, and, in fact, such fellow servant was quite able to do his part of the work properly, and in the great majority of cases did so. So far as he was concerned, the only trouble was that he was careless, and, if that carelessness can be said to have been the proximate cause of the accident, it was the negligence of a fellow servant, not that of the employer.
The evidence does not show that the dangers incident to the work were "not patent to plaintiff's observation." What dangers there were were perfectly apparent, and the plaintiff testified that he was perfectly aware of them, in addition to which he was expressly warned by one of the defendants.
In our opinion the verdict was clearly against the evidence.
Judgment and order appealed from reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
CLARKE, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ., concur.