Case Name: KENZ v. BERNHEIMER & SWARTZ PILSENER BREWING CO. et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-05-29
Citations: 147 N.Y.S. 1024
Docket Number: 
Parties: KENZ v. BERNHEIMER & SWARTZ PILSENER BREWING CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 147
Pages: 1024–1028

Head Matter:
KENZ v. BERNHEIMER & SWARTZ PILSENER BREWING CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
May 29, 1914.)
Master and Servant (§ 321 )—Liability for Injuries to Contractor’s Employé.
The proprietor of a brewery containing, as a part of the plant, beer vats, the interior of which needed to be varnished at frequent intervals, employed an independent contractor to do the work of varnishing, the varnish being selected and furnished by such proprietor. The fumes from the varnish injured the eyesight of an employe of the contractor. There was in general use a device, known as a blower, which would have ventilated the vats, preventing injury from the poisonous effects of the fumes, but neither the proprietor nor the contractor supplied such appliance. Held, that the proprietor was liable for the injuries under Labor Law (Consol. Laws, c. 31), § 200, as amended by Laws 1910, c. 352, providing that if an employer contracts with an independent contractor to do part of such employer’s work, such contract shall not bar "the employer’s liability for injuries to the contractor’s employés, caused by any defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant, if they are the property of the employer, or are furnished by him, and if such defect arose or had not been discovered or remedied, through the negligence of the employer or of some person intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that they were in proper condition, since the vat without the blower was not a safe place to work, but was unsafe and defective.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 1262; Dec. Dig. § 321.*]
Thomas, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
Action by Gustave Kenz against the Bernheimer & Swartz Pilsener Brewing Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new trial, the defendant named appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, CARR, STAPLE-TON, and PUTNAM, JJ.
Frank Verner Johnson, of New York City, for appellant.
M. L. Malevinsky, of New York City (Bertha Rembaugh, of New York City, on the brief), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date» & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
STAPLETON, J.
The plaintiff's eyesight was impaired by fumes of wood alcohol. The fumes were produced by the application of varnish to the interior surface of appellant's beer vats. The varnish contained 58 per cent, of methyl alcohol and 42 per cent, of shellac. This combination throws off fumes. The vats are circular in form and vary in size. The smallest are 10 or 12 feet in height and 8 or 10 feet in diameter. They are without opening, except that at the base there is a manhole 2 feet wide and 2 feet high, and at the top there is a bunghole 2 inches in diameter. These openings furnish the only outlet for the fumes, and are inadequate to liberate them naturally. There is in general use a mechanical device, known as a blower, which is operated by electricity, and which ventilates the vats while the work of varnishing the inferior surface is in progress. Its purpose is to prevent injury to persons engaged in that sort of work from the poisonous effects of the alcohol fumes. The plaintiff recovered a verdict against his employer, Lutz, and against Bernheimer & Swartz Pilsener Brewing Company, which is the sole appellant.
The plaintiff served a notice under the Labor Law (chapter 36, Laws of 1909, constituting chapter 31 of the Consolidated Laws, as amended by chapter 352, Laws of 1910, § 201).
The appellant owns and conducts a brewery. Beer vats are a part of its plant. It desired to have the interior surface of the vats varnished. It is necessary to do this work at frequent intervals. The defendant selected and furnished the varnish; it knew the danger confronting a varnisher when varnishing without proper ventilation; it was familiar with the device, in general use, designed to produce such ventilation; it elected, for purposes of its own, to have the varnishing done without the use of such device; it contracted with one Lutz to do the work; it supplied no blower. Lutz employed the plaintiff as a varnisher. Lutz used no blower.
Upon this state of acts the trial court submitted the question of the appellant's negligence to the jury. The theory of the submission was that if the jury found the facts in favor of the plaintiff, liability was established under the provisions of section 200 of the Labor Law (ut supra), which, in so far as applicable, reads':
"I£ an employer enters into a contract, written or verbal, with an independent contractor to do part of such employer's work, or if such contractor enters into a contract with a subcontractor to do all or any part of the work comprised in such contractor's contract with.the employer, such contract or subcontract shall not bar the liability of the employer for the injuries to the employes of such contractor or subcontractor caused by any defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant, if they are the property of the employer or are furnished by him, and if such' defect arose, or had not been discovered or remedied, through the negligence of the employer, or of some person intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that they were in proper condition."
.• The- state-of facts presented upon, the trial, and herein outlined, brings the case, in our opinion, clearly within the scope of this statute. The vats are part of appellant's plant. Lipstein v. Provident Loan Society, 154 App. Div. 732, 139 N. Y. Supp. 799. The appellant supplied the place to work and the" material with which to work. The material was inherently dangerous to the health of the workmen unless applied with certain aids that are customarily used. Appellant did not supply those aids or see to it that they were supplied. It was in fact, for its own purpose, hostile to their use. A vat, with a blower applied, is a safe place to do the work. Without the blower applied, the vat is unsafe and defective, because there is lacking an apparatus essential to the safe prosecution of the work. The injury to an employé of a contractor, with whom the appellant entered into a contract to do part of its work, was caused by a defect in the condition of the plant, the property of the appellant and furnished by it.
We have examined the exceptions upon which the appellant assigns error, and have concluded that no reversible error was committed.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
' JENKS, P. J., and CARR and PUTNAM, JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., reads for reversal.