Case Name: Catharine Moy, as Administratrix, Appellant, v. The Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah, Respondent
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-05
Citations: 12 Misc. 375
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catharine Moy, as Administratrix, Appellant, v. The Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
Catharine Moy, as Administratrix, Appellant, v. The Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah, Respondent.
(New York Superior Court
General Term,
May, 1895.)
The reasonably safe place for the work which a master is required to furnish to his servants is one in which the permanent constructions have been made with reasonable safety.
While at work in the lower hold of one of defendant’s steamers, the plaintiff, for some unexplained reason, crossed directly under an open hatchway, and was struck by a barrel which fell from a sling, in which it was being lowered. There was no evidence of any imperfection in the sling, or anything inherently dangerous in the mode of doing the work. Meld, that if there was any negligence, it was that of a fellow-servant, for which the defendant was not liable.
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered on dismissal of the complaint at Trial Term.
L. Ruser, for appellant.
Uoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson {H. L. Soheuerman, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
McAdam, J.
The action is under the statute to recover damages for the death of one Patrick Moy, an employee of the defendant. '
It appears that the decedent was, on August 13, 1894-, at work in one of the lower holds of the steamship City of Augusta, and that a barrel which was being lowered into the .hold of the vessel fell from the sling in which it was held and struck him while he, for some unexplained reason, was crossing directly under the open hatchway.
The hatchway had been opened to unload the vessel, and the orders were to stand clear of the hatches until the hooks were sent down, when the barrels were taken charge of by the workmen. There was no evidence of - any imperfection in the sling, or anything inherently dangerous in the mode of doing the work. The sling was in charge of a fellow-workman of the decedent, and if there was any negligence it was that of the fellow-servant, for whose conduct the defendant is not liable.
There can be no claim that Hoy did not have a reasonably safe place in which to work ; for that means a place in which the permanent constructions have been made with reasonable safety. Brick v. R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 211; Harley v. B. C. M. Co., 142 id. 31; Mickee v. Wood, etc., Co., 77 Hun, 558.
The' decedent went over the cargo in the dangerous open hatchway, and it nowhere appears that he was in a place necessitated by his work. Under the edge of the covering, where it would seem he properly belonged, he would have been perfectly safe.
Under the circumstances there was no proof to fasten negligence upon the defendant, nor to exculpate the decedent from the inference of contributory negligence.
The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
Sedgwick, Oh. J., and Feeedman, J., concur.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.