Case Name: Joseph Morey, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-12-28
Citations: 175 A.D. 756
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Morey, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 756–760

Head Matter:
Joseph Morey, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Respondent.
Third Department,
December 28, 1916.
Railroads — negligence — defect in scaffolding used to construct ceiling in railroad station — Employers’ Liability Act of Pennsylvania — when liability of defendant question for jury.
A plank furnished by a railroad company and placed upon brackets to enable workmen to construct the ceiling of a railroad station is a structure for defects in which the jury may find the railroad company liable under the Employers’ Liability Act of the State of Pennsylvania, and this is so although the plaintiff and his fellow-workmen, thinking the structure not entirely secure, supported the plank by placing a perpendicular plank under it to prevent it from sagging.
"Woodward and Cochrane, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Joseph Morey, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Chemung on the 24th day of April, 1916, upon a dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case, and also, as stated in the notice of appeal, from the order granting the nonsuit.
Charles C. Annabel, for the appellant.
Cobb, Cobb, McAllister, Feinberg & Heath [Riley H. Heath of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kellogg, P. J.:
Evidently the horizontal plank was furnished by the company as a platform. The work upon the ceiling could not be done without the use of a platform. Those who had worked upon the ceiling before the plaintiff came evidently considered this plank as the platform furnished them. There is no suggestion that any other platform was furnished. The fact that the plaintiff and his fellow-workmen, when they were required to finish the work upon the ceiling, thought that the platform was not entirely secure and put a perpendicular plank under it to prevent it from sagging does not relieve the defendant from the duty of furnishing a suitable platform. Of course, if the platform was sufficient aside from the upright plank, and they rendered it insecure by attempting to fix it, the plaintiff should not recover. It is difficult to see how the upright plank could act as a pivot and make the platform more insecure than it was before. It was a fair question of fact for the jury to determine whether the plank was furnished as a platform and whether the plaintiff and his companion, by tampering with it, rendered it insecure and unsafe.
The order and judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.