Case Name: WELK v. JACKSON ARCHITECTURAL IRONWORKS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-11-18
Citations: 90 N.Y.S. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: WELK v. JACKSON ARCHITECTURAL IRONWORKS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 90
Pages: 541–546

Head Matter:
(98 App. Div. 247)
WELK v. JACKSON ARCHITECTURAL IRONWORKS et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
November 18, 1904.)
1. Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Defective Scaffolding-Labor Law.
Perpendicular columns having been set up in the erection of a steel building, a beam was hung from one column to another, and lashed to them by ropes, for the purpose of holding the iron girders until the wall was erected, between the beams; and also to furnish a place for the employes to walk in spacing the girders. Eeld, that such timber was a scaffold, within Labor Law, § 18 (Laws 1897, p. 467, c. 415), providing that an employer shall not furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected, for the performance of labor in the erection of a house, scaffolding which is unsafe or improper to give proper protection to the life and limbs of employSs.
2. Same—Findings—Evidence.
In an actipn for injuries to a servant from' the turning of a beam on which he was directed by his foreman to go, evidence held to warrant findings that plaintiff went upon a completed structure for the performance of a duty to defendant;, that the beam was not so placed or constructed as to afford proper protection, and that the same was furnished as a scaffold by defendant
3. Same.
Where defendant directed the erection of a beam between two iron columns of a steel building, which beam' was lashed to the columns with ropes and used as a scaffold, and the work of lashing was so negligently done that when plaintiff, a steelworker, went on the beam as directed, it sagged and turned so that plaintiff was precipitated into the cellar and injured, defendant was liable therefor under Labor Law, § 18, requring the master to provide and furnish safe scaffolding for the protection of life and limbs of .employes.
4. Same—Damages—Excessiveness.
Plaintiff, a steelworker, was precipitated four or five stories to the cellar of a building by reason of the insufficiency of a scaffold, and sustained a fracture of the tibia, both wrists, and of the skull. He was unconscious for two weeks, and remained in the hospital for two months. He then walked on crutches for three months, and did not return to any kind of work for six months. He sustained an almost total loss of the sight of one eye, and, though there was a good union between the bones broken, the left wrist was permanently deformed, the right partially so, and his leg was permanently deformed and injured. Held, that a verdict of $9,000 was not excessive.
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Queens County.
Action by Joseph Welle against the Jackson Architectural Ironworks. From a in favor of and from an order defendant ironworks’ motion for a new trial, it appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and BARTLETT, WOODWARD, JENICS, and HOOKER, JJ.
Frank Verner Johnson (Robert Thorne, on the brief), for appellant.
Charles Caldwell, -for respondent.

Opinion:
JENKS, J.
The action is by a servant against a master for negligence. The master was putting up an iron and steel building, and a structure upon which the servant was working sagged or canted so that the servant lost his balance and fell from the height of four or five stories. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The- case was tried on the theory that the master was liable under section 18 of the labor law (Laws 1897, p. 467, c. 415).
I think that the'structure was a scaffolding within the purview of this section. Perpendicular columns had been set up, and the structure was a beam of timber 15 or 20 feet long, 3 or 4 inches thick, and 12 inches wide, hung from one perpendicular column to another, and lashed to them by ropes. The plaintiff testifies that before the wall was built this structure was necessary for the iron girders to rest upon; that it' was a scaffold to walk across and for the beams to rest upon; that it was intended to be used in placing- the iron girders at proper inter vals—"to walk on and space them at a right distance"; that it was there for the workmen to walk on to release the sling, and that there was no other way- in which he could do it. He is essentially corroborated by several witnesses. Lord Brampton, in Hoddinott v. Newton Chambers & Co., L. R. App. Cas. 1901, p. 49, adopts and approves language of Rigby, L. J., in Maude v. Brook, L. R. 1900, 1 Q. B. 575, which is pertinent to this case. This fabric was a "temporary structure upon which workmen stood in erecting the walls of a building," and thus within the definition of the Century Dictionary, as well as "a platform temporarily erected during the progress of the structure for the support of workmen and material," and thus meets the definition in Knight's Am. Meehan. Dictionary.
There was evidence which warranted the finding that the plaintiff went upon a completed structure, for he testifies that it was lashed— it was tied or lashed around the girders. Miller and Olsen, the servants of the defendant, did the lashing at the ends respectively. The plaintiff testifies that he "gave Miller a hand to lash it, and then went over in the center to take the sling off," but before going upon the structure he looked over to Olsen's end, which was the further end, to see whether he had it tied; it was tied; that after that Cooper, who had charge of the immediate gang, asked Olsen whether it was "all right"; Olsen answered "Yes"; and that thereupon, under Cooper's order, he went out upon the structure. Plaintiff's witness Pettorine testifies that áfter the plaintiff fell from the structure it was still tied, but "looked a little bit sideways." There was evidence to sustain a finding that the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was about his master's work. The plaintiff testifies that Cooper told him to take the sling off, and also to give Olsen a hand on some beams which were to be prepared to be set. Cooper admits that he sent the plaintiff to give Olsen a hand, but at first testifies that he does not remember telling him to take off the sling as he crossed the beam, and then that he did not tell him to do it. Cooper testifies first that there was no sling on, but after-wards that there was a rope which answered that purpose. The defendant's witness Olsen testifies that there was a sling very near the center of the beam. I dwell upon this feature of the testimony because the plaintiff testifies that Cooper told him to release the sling, and that there was no way to do this save by walking out upon the structure.
There was evidence which warranted a finding that this scaffolding was not placed or constructed so as to afford proper protection. The plaintiff testifies that it sagged and canted about six inches so as to throw him off. He is corroborated as to the sagging by his witnesses Haley and Shebill and by defendant's witness Cooper. True, the defendant's witness Olsen testifies that his end was not lashed at this time, but that he was engaged in lashing it, having one turn around it; but he further testifies that the lashing used was a rope about 30 feet long, three-quarters of an inch thick, and that "it was wet and stiff, but otherwise a good rope for the purpose." If the jury credited the testimony of the plaintiff that Olsen's end was tied, that Olsen told Cooper that it was "all right," and of his witness Pettorine that after plaintiff fell the- scaffold was still tied, but "looked a little bit sideways," it was justified in finding that it was improperly tied by Olsen, or was tied by a rope that was "wet and stiff, but otherwise a good rope for the purpose." I think that the tying to an iron column by a "wet and stiff rope otherwise good" may account for the sagging or wobbling of the beam after the plaintiff stepped upon it.
There was evidence to justify the finding that the scaffolding was furnished or erected, or caused to be furnished or erected, by the master. Class, the general foreman, testifies that he saw the timber, and knew it was being put up. Defendant's witness Olsen testifies that Cooper, the foreman of his gang, directed him to lash the end of the timber. Cooper testifies that he was engaged in lashing the beam when Welk came up. Olsen and Miller, who were at work lashing the ends, were both servants of the defendant. I think that the jury, then, were justified in holding the master liable under section 18 of the labor law, on the ground that he was responsible for the safety of the scaffold and for the want of care in the details of its construction (Stewart v. Ferguson, 164 N. Y. 553, 58 N. E. 662), "without exception upon account of his ignorance or the carelessness of his servants" (Id.; Tierney v. Vunck, 97 App. Div. 1, 89 N. Y. Supp. 612).
It cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff was chargeable with contributory negligence. He was an ironworker by trade. The scaffolding was apparently lashed and tied at both ends, for the plaintiff looked over at the other end, and saw that it was tied, and he heard Olsen assure Cooper that it was "all right" before Cooper told him to proceed upon the scaffold. Nothing shows that in the exercise of due care he could foresee that the further end was so insecurely lashed or tied as that it would sag or wobble if one walked upon it. Olsen says that the rope was wet and stiff, but otherwise a good rope for that purpose. Nor does the mere fact that the plaintiff assisted Miller in lashing an end, if he did so, make him guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Wingert v. Krakauer, 76 App. Div. 34, 78 N. Y. Supp. 664.
The plaintiff lay in the hospital unconscious for two weeks, and remained there for two months. He then walked upon crutches for three months, and did not return to any kind of work for six months. His strength is impaired, his eyesight is affected, and he cannot now work save in a different field of labor. His physician testifies that he had a fracture of the tibia, fracture of both wrists, and fracture of the skull, and that there is almost a total loss of sight of one eye. He also testifies that, though there is a very good union, the left wrist is permanently injured and deformed, and the other partially so; his leg is permanently deformed, and permanently injured, and it will always be the cause, of suffering; and there is a partial paralysis of the optic nerve. No testimony is offered by the defendant on the subject of the injury. We cannot say that the verdict of $9,000 is excessive.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., who reads for reversal.