Case Name: Louisa Gustafson, as Administratrix, etc., of Carl A. G. Gustafson, Deceased, Respondent, v. William Young, Appellant, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-03
Citations: 91 A.D. 433
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louisa Gustafson, as Administratrix, etc., of Carl A. G. Gustafson, Deceased, Respondent, v. William Young, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 433–435

Head Matter:
Louisa Gustafson, as Administratrix, etc., of Carl A. G. Gustafson, Deceased, Respondent, v. William Young, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
Negligence— death from the collapse of a building—proof of a prim' accident not competent where it is not shown that the physical conditions were the same.
In an action brought to recover damages resulting from- the death of the plaintiff's intestate, who, while working in a building, which the defendant was reconstructing, was killed in consequence of the collapse of the interior structure, evidence given by a witness to the effect that three or four weeks before the accident, while walking over a tile floor placed upon the first tier of beams in the building, the floor and one or two beams went down under' him, is incompetent, where it does not appear that the physical condition of the building at the time the prior accident happened was the same as that which prevailed at the time of the accident under review.
Appeal by the defendant, William Young,, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 15th day of January, 1903, upon the verdict of a jury for $4,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 12th day of January, 1903, denying the said defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Edwin A. Jones [Harford T. Marshall with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Frank Harvey Field [J. Edward Swanstrom and Conrad Saxe Keyes with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Jenks, J. :
The defendant, a contractor, has been adjudged negligent in the reconstruction of a building. The interior structure collapsed, and the plaintiff's intestate, a workman, fell to his death. Under objection and exception, the plaintiff's witness Nelson testified that three or four weeks before the fatality, when he was walking through the hall bn a tile floor placed upon the first tier of beams, the floor and also one or two beams went down under him; that he examined the place, found certain conditions existing, and that he spoke of the matter to the foreman of the mason sub-contractors. At the close bf his testimony a motion Was made to strike out the evidence of this accident on the ground that it appeared that the circumstances were not in any way similar to the accident complained of.. The motion was denied under exception.-
I think that the rulings upon this testimony require a reversal of the judgment. Three or four weeks intervened the prior accident, and the one in question. During that period the work would naturally change the character of the structure even from day • to day. If it did not in this case, then it was the duty of the plaintiff to show that it did not. The mere fact that the work was progressive does not warrant the conclusion that the structure, at the end of four weeks, was more dangerous, for the work was only destructive towards reconstruction. The learned counsel for the respondent argues that evidence of similar accidents occurring upon the premises is proper for the purpose of showing that the defendant had notice of the danger, citing Dougan v. Champlain Transportation Co. (56 N. Y. 1) ; Cleveland v. New Jersey Steamboat Co. (68 id. 306) ; and McGovern v. Central Vermont R. R. Co. (123 id. 280). And we are also cited to Bailey v. R., W. & O. R. R. Co. (139 id. 302), where the court held that the plaintiff could prove that other brakes on the car were defective, as bearing on the question of inspection of the particular defective brake of which complaint was made. None of these decisions is in point. The vice in the ruling consists in admitting evidence of a prior accident without attendant proof that the physical conditions were materially the same. (Dye v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 671 ; Brady v. M. R. Co., 127 id. 46 ; Morrow v. Westchester Electric Railway Co., 54 App. Div. 592 ; affd., 172 N. Y. 638.)
The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
All concurred.
Judgment and order reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.