Case Name: FOX v. LE COMTE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-02-11
Citations: 37 N.Y.S. 316
Docket Number: 
Parties: FOX v. LE COMTE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 37
Pages: 316–322

Head Matter:
FOX v. LE COMTE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
February 11, 1896.)
1. Master and Servant—Knowledge op Defects—Notice to Vice Principal.
Knowledge, on the part of a machinist intrusted by his principal with the duty of keeping in repair the machinery in his factory, as to the defective condition of machinery by which another employs was injured, is notice to the master.
2. Master and Servant—Assumption op Risk—Evidence.
In an action by a servant against his master for injuries received while-working on a press for pressing caps for tin cans, by having his thumb caught between the plunger and the die on which the tin disks were placed, it appealed that the drop of the plunger was intended to be controlled by pressure with the foot upon a treadle, which caused clutch bolts in the axle (around which the driving wheel of the press revolved without moving it) to drop into countersunk holes in the hub of the wheel; thereby locking the axle to the wheel, and communicating motion to the plunger. Plaintiff testified that on the day before the accident there was a continual, unusual, clicking sound about the press, and that the plunger dropped several times without any pressure being placed on the treadle; that he notified the machinist of the drop of the plunger, who attempted to fix it; that on the day of the accident he again stated to the machinist that the machine was “clicking and the punch going up and down,” who, after hammering around the press a little, told him that the machine was all right; the clicking, though, still kept up. Plaintiff also testified that he did not know that the clicking was a sign that the machine was out of order, anci other witnesses testified that the clicking did not indicate such fact. Held, that the evidence did not show, as a matter of law, that plaintiff knew that the clicking was a sign that the machine was out of order, and therefore assumed the risk therefrom by reason of the plunger’s dropping without pressure being placed on the treadle. Pratt and Hatch, J.T., dissenting.
Appeal from city court of Brooklyn, trial term.
Action by William Fox, an infant, by Mary Fox, his guardian ad litem, against Joseph Le Comte. From a judgment entered on a
verdict in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and PRATT, CULLEN, BARTLETT and HATCH, JJ.
Flamen B. Candler and Edgerton L. Winthrop, for appellant.
Charles J. Patterson, for respondent.

Opinion:
CULLEN, J.
This action is—servant against master—to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, a boy of 16 years, was employed to work a power press which is set in motion by pressure of the foot upon a treadle. When the pressure is removed, the punch should come to rest. After working some two weeks in the factory, part of his thumb was cut off by the plunger or punch. The plaintiff's claim was that the press was out of order, and the plunger moved without pressure being applied to the treadle. The defendant's claim was that the press was nowise defective, but that the plaintiff carelessly let his foot fall on the treadle. Testimony was given to support the claims of the respective parties, both as to-the facts of the accident, and also, of an expert nature, as to the operation of such machines. At the'close of the case the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, both on the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and a failure to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. The exception to the refusal of the court to grant this motion, and the claim of the defendant that the verdict was against the evidence, present the only questions necessary to discuss on this appeal.
It is charged that the plaintiff was negligent in two respects. The first is that he placed his thumb under the plunger, while he "was instructed to take the disk between his finger and thumb when placing it on the die, by which only the soft parts of the fingers would be exposed. Plaintiff denies this instruction, and claims that his thumb was necessarily exposed. The jury saw the press operated at the trial and could determine whether its proper operation placed the thumb of the plaintiff in danger. The second claim is that the plaintiff knew of the defective character of the press, and, with that knowledge, continued to work on it. We think that this was not conclusively established, but was a question- for the jury to determine. Doubtless, the plaintiff knew the press had been defective, but, according to his testimony, on his complaint the press was repaired by the machinist whose duty it was to care for and repair the machines. Plaintiff was then told to go to work, and worked on the press for about an hour before the accident occurred. By his statement, during all this period, the press continued to click. To charge him with negligence, it was not only necessary to show that he knew of the clicking, but also that he knew that the clicking imported that the machine was dangerous. Not only does plaintiff swear that he did not know this fact, but it was a question most seriously litigated at the trial, the defendant's witnesses swearing that the clicking of the press did not indicate that-it was defective or out of order.
As to the defendant's negligence, it is undisputed that, if the plunger moved without pressure on the treadle, the press was defective. It was alleged that, though this was the case, the defendant had no knowledge of the fact. It was not necessary that the •defendant should personally have such knowledge. The repair of the press was not a mere detail of the work, as in Webber v. Piper, 109 N. Y. 496, 17 N. E. 216, but a part of the master's duty to use reasonable care to provide safe appliances for his servants. This duty was committed to the machinist, but, being the master's duty, the machinist, in the discharge of it, was not a coservant, but represented the master. For his neglect the master was liable. Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46; Bushby v. Railroad Co., 107 N. Y. 374, 14 N. E. 407. The present case cannot be distinguished from .those of Hayes v. Manufacturing Co., 41 Hun, 407; Van Sickel v. Ilsley, 75 Hun, 537, 27 N. Y. Supp. 1113.
The court, hearing a constant repetition of the tale, in cases of accidents occurring in the use of these presses, that the press clicked, and then the punch came down without action by the operator, may be suspicious of the truth of some of these narratives. The question, however, is one of fact, for the jury, and the court is not justified in interfering, unless the verdict is manifestly against the evidence. Of course, the court will allow no verdict to stand that was based on the negation of a well-known and accepted scientific fact of common knowledge, or on the existence of a physical impossibility. But the operation of these presses is not a matter of common knowledge, and, if the movement of the plunger without pressure on the treadle is an impossibility, it was incumbent upon the defendant to establish it. The defendant did not satisfy the jury of the fact, nor has he satisfied us.
The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
BROWN, P. J., and BARTLETT, J., concur.