Case Name: Alexander Harvey, Appellant, v. Samuel McConchie, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902
Citations: 77 A.D. 361
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alexander Harvey, Appellant, v. Samuel McConchie, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 361–367

Head Matter:
Alexander Harvey, Appellant, v. Samuel McConchie, Respondent.
Negligence—injury from, the fall of a defective scaffold,—when the employee assumes the risk.
In an action brought by a journeyman painter against his employer, a boss painter, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the journeyman in consequence of the collapse of a scaffold upon which the journeyman was standing while painting a house, it appeared that both the plaintiff and the defendant assisted in the construction of the scaffold. The plaintiff testified that he refused to use the scaffold until after he had been assured of its safety by the defendant. The defendant denied having given such assurance. The issue thus raised, and also the question whether the defects, if any, in the scaffold were obvious, were submitted to the jury. The court charged as follows : " the plaintiff and the defendant together erected the appliance; each knew there were no nails in it; each knew there were no ropes tied there, and it is for you to say whether or not, under those circumstances, it was not one of the obvious risks of the employment, which was part of the contract of hiring which the plaintiff assumed, because if the plaintiff did not assume the obvious risks of hiring, then an employer would be an insurer. * * * The plaintiff must look out for himself; he must not go into a business with obvious risks if he does not want to assume them. * * * It is for you to consider whether whatever risks there were, he did not see them."
Held, that the charge was proper and that a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the defendant should be affirmed.
Hatch, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Alexander Harvey, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of April, 1902, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 21st day of April, 1902, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Theodore B. Chancellor, for the appellant.
Joseph Fettretch, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.:
This judgment should be affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Hatch. The court charged the jury that "the plaintiff and the defendant together erected the appliance; each knew there were no nails in it; each knew there were no ropes tied there, and it is. for you to say whether or not, under those circumstances, it was not one of the obvious risks of the employment, which was part of the contract of hiring which the plaintiff assumed, because if the plaintiff did not assume the obvious risks of hiring, then an employer would be an insurer. The plaintiff must look out for himself; he must not go into a business with obvious risks if he does not want to assume them . It is for you to consider whether whatever risks there were, he did not see them."
I think this was correct. Assuming that there was a violation by the defendant of the duty to furnish to his employee a safe scaffold upon which to do his work, a failure.to furnish such a scaffold would justify the jury in finding the defendant negligent. The ordinary rule, however, that, as between employer and employee, an employee assumes an obvious risk in doing the work which he is employed to do, applies. The plaintiff testified that he helped to erect this scaffold; that he knew as much about it as the defendant; that he expressed doubt about its safety and only used it when assured by the defendant that it was safe. The defendant denied that he gave such assurance, and the question whether such assurance was given was submitted to the jury, who have found a verdict for the defendant. While this was a question for the jury, I think it was left to them by a charge that was free from error, and that their verdict should not be disturbed. The plaintiff had assisted in the construction of this scaffold; was familiar with the details of its construction, and if he used it with full knowledge of its condition without any assurance from the defendant that it was safe or a proper one under the circumstances, the jury were justified in finding that the plaintiff had assumed the risk in the use of the appliance as it existed when he used it. I do not find that the court charged that whatever defects existed in this appliance were perfectly obvious, but that question was, I think, fairly left to the jni7-
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., O'Brien and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred; Hatch, J., dissented.