Case Name: Lauris Tendrup, Resp't, v. John Stephenson Co. Limited, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-01-28
Citations: 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 487
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lauris Tendrup, Resp’t, v. John Stephenson Co. Limited, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 21
Pages: 487–491

Head Matter:
Lauris Tendrup, Resp’t, v. John Stephenson Co. Limited, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed January 28, 1889.)
Negligence—Liability of employer.
A workman had heen ordered by Ms employer to put a certain, machine in position, and in order to do so it became necessary to unfasten and remove a stairway. While the stairway was in this insecure condition a fellow workman, who was ignorant of the fact, in attempting to ascend it, was thrown down and injured. Held, that as the act from which the injury resulted was done by order of the employer or Ms alter ego, he was liable for negligence, particularly as he owed his servant the duty of furnishing them a safe place to prosecute their work. Bartlett, J., dissenting.
Appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of á jury, and from order denying motion for a new trial.
Wm. Allen Butter, for app’lt; J. Edward Swanston, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Brady, J.
It will be perceived on reading the opinion of Bartlett, J., that the act of removing the stairway was one authorized by the defendants, the negligence of the so-called fellow w'orkman being his leaving the stairway without a guard or notice, and without being fastened while he was seeking the means of finishing his work of removaL This makes a vast difference between this case and that of Crispin v. Babbitt (81 N. Y., 516), to which Justice Bartlett refers. • There the injury was occasioned by an act with which the master had no connection directly or indirectly, and was one of carelessness. The fellow workman carelessly let on steam and the plaintiff was injured.
The true rule, I apprehend, said Church, Oh. J,. is to hold the corporation liable for negligence in respect to such acts and duties as it is required to perform as master, without regard to the rank or title of the agent instructed with their performance. As to such acts, the agent occupies the place of the corporation, and the latter is liable for the manner in which they are performed. Here, it appears, that Jeblick, the fellow workman, had been ordered by the defendant's foreman to put a machine in position, to do which it was necessary to remove the stairs. They were removed, and hence the accident, for the reason that they were not secured, of which the plaintiff was ignorant. The distinction made by the cases bearing upon the' obligations and responsibilities of employers for the carelessness of one fellow workman, resulting in the injury of another in the same common employment, are somewhat shadowy, and therefore, difficult of application; but where the act causing the injury is an independent one, and done by order of the employer or his alter ego as in this case, the liability of the employer seems to be settled, particularly when it is within the principle that he owes his servant the duty of furnishing him a safe and proper place to prosecute his work. Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co., 99 N. Y., 368. In addition to this it may be said, that the case of Berea Stone Co. v. Kraft (31 Ohio St. 287), and quoted by Earl, J., in his dissenting opinion in Crispin v. Babbitt (supra), exactly hits this case. Indeed, that opinion will be found sustained by authorities, the doctrines of which make the defendants here liable for the plaintiff's injuries. I am decidedly in favor of the affirmance of the judgment.
Daniels, J concurs.