Case Name: George H. Brennan, App'lt, v. Read Gordon, Jr., Resp't
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-06
Citations: 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 604
Docket Number: 
Parties: George H. Brennan, App’lt, v. Read Gordon, Jr., Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 604–608

Head Matter:
George H. Brennan, App’lt, v. Read Gordon, Jr., Resp’t.
(New York Common Pleas,
Filed December 6, 1886.)
1. Negligence—Res ipso loquitur—When maxim not applicable.
The maxim Res ipso loquitur has no application in the case of an accident which is claimed to have happened through defendant’s negligence where the cause of the accident is known to a certainty.
2. Employees—Not liable to servant for damages arising through
NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS FELLOW SERVANT.
Where plaintiff, while in defendant’s employ, is injured hy an accident, he cannot recover damages from his employer if it was caused hy the negligence of his fellow servant.
3. Same—Only when employee is acting as the master..
The mere fact that a foreman may now and then employ a man for his master’s service does not make him at all times the alter ego of his master. In order that plaintiff may recover damages from his employer for an accident arising through the negligence of such foreman, it is necessary that he should prove that he was at that time engaged in the performance of an act that properly fell within the sphere of duties that the law imposes on a master;
The defendants, who were packers and preservers of fruit, moved into a building in Greenwich, street, in which a new elevator had been constructed for their use under the immediate charge of one Mulcahy, by whom it was used, and he signified his intention in February, 1881, to instruct the man who was going to úse it. The plaintiff was desig noted for that purpose. The evidence shows that ne did receive instructions from Mulcahy, and had entire charge of it on the day upon which the accident' occurred. On March first two beams were placed upon the elevator by Mulcahy and his assistants, which were to be used on the top floor of the building. At the same time a brother of the defendant and Dilworth placed another beam on the car to go to the top floor. The evidence shows that he directed the plaintiff to go to the third floor and stop. The car being stopped level with the third floor, Dilworth left it, directing plaintiff to remain there until he, Dilworth, should reach the top floor.
The testimony is conflicting as to whether or not these instructions were obeyed. After the two beams which Mulcahy had put upon the car were taken off, Dilworth reached the top floor, and was about to take off the beam placed by him on the car when it started; the end of the beam' struck the roof, and one of the two clutches operating the drum broke and the elevator fell to the cellar below, whereby the plaintiff suffered the injury for which he now sues.
Upon a previous trial the complaint was dismissed, but the general term of this court, upon appeal, held that the case should have been submitted to the jury, which was subsequently done, and a verdict rendered for the defendant, and from the judgment entered upon that verdict this appeal is taken. ,
Edward P. Schell, for app’lt; Edward C. James, of counsel; Kitchell & Jeliffe, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Larremore, C. J.
The general term of the court, upon the authority of the Railroad Co., v. Fort (17 Wallace U.S., 554); Mann v. Delaware, etc., Co. (91 N, Y., 500), held that in-this case the instructor of the plaintiff did not occupy to him the relation of a company servant, but that he was a representative of the master who was answerable for his incompetency or negligence.
The questions of fact in the case appear to have been fairly submitted to the jury, and the special findings directed by the court in an alternative form could not, in my judgment, have affected the conclusion which the jury finally reached in their general verdict.
Some stress is laid upon a portion of the charge, which is as follows:
" If upon the whole case you were satisfied the defendants were not in fault, and you conclude to render a verdict for them, you need not answer any of these questions." Devizes, Mayor, etc., v. Clark, 3 A. and E., 506.
This seems to be no substantial error, and could not have possibly misled the jury. They passed upon the material issues in the case and decided in defendant's favor, and I. find no error upon the trial for which it should be disturbed. See 3 A. and E., 506.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.