Case Name: MONAHAN v. EIDLITZ et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-03-15
Citations: 69 N.Y.S. 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: MONAHAN v. EIDLITZ et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 69
Pages: 335–340

Head Matter:
(59 App. Div. 224.)
MONAHAN v. EIDLITZ et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 15, 1901.)
k Negligence—Master and Servant—Evidence—Instruction to Jury.
Defendants were erecting a building. Plaintiff’s intestate was working for subcontractors on the building. The whole work was under the direction of defendants’ foreman. An employé of defendants was directed to carry a mortar tub up a ladder to a scaffold above where deceased was at work, and was charged to be very careful. The foot of the ladder was not secured, and the top rested against a swinging scaffold. As the man reached the top, the tub struck an iron girder, the bottom of the ladder slipped, and the tub' fell upon plaintiff’s intestate. Held, that the jury might fairly find that the accident was caused by the negligence of defendants’ servant, and the court erred in directing a verdict for defendants, since there was no question of fellow servant or of contributory negligence.
2. Same—Proximate Cause—Involuntary Act.
Where defendants’ servant was carrying a tub of mortar up a ladder, and collided with an iron girder, causing the ladder to slip, and the tub fell on, and killed plaintiff’s intestate, it was immaterial whether the tub was thrown from his shoulder by the force of the blow, or he involuntarily dropped it under the influence of pressing danger, since in either event the proximate cause of the accident was his so ascending the ladder and permitting the tub to collide with the girder.
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Kings county.
Action by Annie Monahan, as administratrix of the estate of James Monahan, deceased, against Otto M. Eidlitz and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, JENKS, and SEWELL, JJ.
Gilbert D. Lamb, for appellant.
Frank V. Johnson, for respondents.

Opinion:
SEWELL, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, which it is alleged was caused by the negligence of the defendants. The deceased was a laborer, and for several years prior to the 14th day of December, 1899, when the accident occurred, had been in the employ of Mulry & Son, and on that day was keeping the time of their workmen in the basement of a building in the process of erection on the west side of Washington street in the borough of Manhattan. The defendants were the builders, and Mulry & 'Son were employed by them. The whole work was under the general supervision of one Shaffer, the foreman of the defendants, who gave directions to Connolly, the foreman of Mulry & Son, who then instructed their employés. Mitchell, the individual charged with the act or acts which caused the death of plaintiff's intestate, was in the employ of the defendants, and on the day in question was directed to carry a mortar or cement tub up a ladder to a scaffold above where the plaintiff's intestate was at work. The tub weighed from 50 to 60 pounds, and Mitchell was charged by a fellow workman, while on his way to the ladder, to be "very careful." The foot of the ladder was not secured, and the top rested against a swinging scaffold or platform. As Mitchell reached the top, carrying the tub upon his right shoulder, it came in contact with an iron girder or projecting brickwork, and, coincident with the collision, the bottom of the ladder slipped several feet, and the tub fell upon and killed plaintiff's intestate.
At the close of plaintiff's evidence the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no negligence had been shown on the part of the defendants, and the court granted the motion. There is no question upon the evidence in this case respecting the negligence oí fellow servants, as the deceased and the person who caused the accident were servants of different masters, and consequently not co-servants. Johnson v. Navigation Co., 132 N. Y. 576, 30 N. E. 505; Butler v. Townsend, 126 N. Y. 105, 26 N. E. 1017; Sanford v. Oil Co., 118 N. Y. 571, 24 N. E. 313. Neither is there any question respecting the absence of contributory negligence, as it appears by the evidence that the decedent was where he had a right to be, and had no reason to expect that the tub would fall upon his head. The only question, therefore, presented by this appeal is whether the jury would have been justified in finding that the defendants' servant was negligent. The burden was upon the plaintiff to make it appear so; and if, from the evidence, men of ordinary prudence and discretion might differ as to the character of his acts, or if the inference to be drawn from, or the significance to be attached to, the testimony is doubtful, the question is one of fact for the jury. Hays v. Miller, 70 N. Y. 112; Nolan v. Railroad Co., 87 N. Y. 63. About the facts there was neither dispute nor contention, and the inquiry, therefore, is whether, measuring them by this rule, a question was raised which ought to have been submitted to the jury. We think the evidence on the part of the plaintiff and the inferences fairly deducible from it permitted the conclusion that the accident was caused by .the negligence of the defendants' servant in ascending, with a heavy burden, a ladder placed and supported as this one appears to have been, and in permitting the tub to collide with the girder or projecting brickwork with so much force as to cause the ladder to slip, or to knock the tub from his shoulder. It matters not whether the collision with the girder or other obstacle forced the tub from Mitchell's shoulder, or whether he dropped it involuntarily under the influence of pressing danger, as claimed by the respondents; for, in either event, the jury might very reasonably have concluded that the fall was the proximate consequence of Mitchell's failure to exercise proper care in ascending the ladder, or to avoid contact with the girder above him, or of both of said causes. If the intervening agency of another, acting under his best judgment, will not relieve a defendant charged with the original act of negligence (Lowery v. Railway Co., 99 N. Y. 158, 1 N. E. 608), much less would an involuntary act of the defendants' servant relieve them from the consequence of an injury caused -by his negligence. In all cases where the defendant has been held exempt it appeared that the involuntary act causing the injury was in no sense traceable to Ms wrongful or negligent conduct. We do not think it can be said in any just sense that the fall of the tub was the proximate cause of the injury. A proximate cause is the efficient cause, and one that necessarily sets the other causes in operation. It is not always the cause nearer in time and place to the accident, for that is sometimes merely incidental to a superior or controlling agency. It is only when causes are independent of each other that the nearer is, of course, to be charged with the disaster. The G. R. Booth, 171 U. S. 450, 19 Sup. Ct. 9, 43 L. Ed. 234. From the facts established by the evidence, and from the circumstances surrounding the occasion, it appears that the efficient, and therefore proximate, cause of the death of plaintiff's intestate was the act of Mitchell in ascending the ladder and permitting the tub to collide "with the girder or brickwork, which it may be assumed caused the ladder to slip and the tub to fall upon and kill the plaintiff's intestate, as there is no reason to suppose or believe that without the operation of these causes the accident would have occurred. However this might be, it cannot be said that such a conclusion is destitute of justification, or that the jury would not have drawn that inference. We think, therefore, that the dismissal of the complaint was error, for which the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., who dissents.