Case Name: BERTOLAMI v. UNITED ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-04-24
Citations: 109 N.Y.S. 1006
Docket Number: 
Parties: BERTOLAMI v. UNITED ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 109
Pages: 1006–1008

Head Matter:
BERTOLAMI v. UNITED ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 24, 1908.)
Master and Servant—Pleading—Issues, Proof, and Variance.
Where, in an action for the death of a servant, the complaint alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to furnish deceased with a safe place to work, in failing to reasonably safeguard the place, appliances, and apparatus used in connection with defendant’s contracting operations, in failing to furnish deceased and said contracting operations with reasonably safe appliances, etc., with which to do the work, in knowingly retaining incompetent foremen and co-workmen to direct and assist deceased in the performance of his work, and in failing to enforce proper rules for the safety of deceased and his co-employés, a recovery could not be had on proof of negligence of defendant's foreman in a detail of the work in causing the removal of an iron column upholding the roof of a tunnel while there still remained on one side of the column eight or ten feet of rock roof unsupported by timbering.
Appeal from Trial Term.
Action by Pasquelina Bertolami as administratrix, etc., against the United Engineering & Contracting Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
For former report, see 105 N. Y. Supp. 90, 120 App. Div. 192. Argued before INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
Theron G. Strong, for appellant.
Thomas J. O’Neill, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment in plaintiff's favor for damages suffered by reason of the death of her intestate. The facts were very fully stated upon a former appeal., 120 App. Div. 192, 105 N. Y. Supp. 90. The action was brought under the employer's liability act (chapter 600, p. 1748, Laws 1902), and the question involved is whether or not the defendant's foreman was guilty of negligence in causing the removal of an iron column which upheld the roof of a tunnel, while there still remained on one side of the column eight or ten feet of rock roof unsupported by timbering. It was this question which was submitted to the jury and resolved in plaintiff's favor.
This was not, however, the negligence alleged in the complaint, which, after alleging that the death of plaintiff's intestate was caused solely by the negligence of defendant, as said intestate's master, pro ceeded to specify the negligent acts as follows: (1) That said defendant failed to furnish him with a safe place to work, and (2) failed to reasonably safeguard, inspect, and keep safe the place, appliances, and apparatus used in connection with said contracting operations, and (3) failed to furnish deceased and said contracting operations with reasonably safe appliances, apparatus, cable, ropes, wires, buckets, ways, works, and machinery with which to do said work, and (4) knowingly employed and retained incompetent foremen and co-workmen to guide, direct, and assist plaintiff's intestate in the performance of his work, and (5) failed to formulate, promulgate, and enforce proper rules and regulations for the safety of deceased and said co-employés. The plaintiff here sets forth five separate and distinct specifications of negligence, not one of which was proven, as the trial justice very properly held and charged.
If there was any negligence, and not a mere error of judgment, it was that of defendant's foreman in the manner in which he directed the prosecution of a detail of the work, and of such negligence there is no allegation in the complaint, and no one of the specifications of negligence quoted above can be fairly construed so as to cover the facts disclosed by the proofs.
It follows that the judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.