Case Name: Pasqualina Bertolami, as Administratrix, etc., of George Bertolami, Deceased, Respondent, v. United Engineering and Contracting Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-04-24
Citations: 125 A.D. 584
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pasqualina Bertolami, as Administratrix, etc., of George Bertolami, Deceased, Respondent, v. United Engineering and Contracting Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 584–586

Head Matter:
Pasqualina Bertolami, as Administratrix, etc., of George Bertolami, Deceased, Respondent, v. United Engineering and Contracting Company, Appellant.
First Department,
April 24, 1908.
Master and servant — negligence — injury in tunnel — variance in pleading and proof.
No recovery can be had for death caused by the negligence of the defendant’s foreman in removing an iron, column supporting the roof of a tunnel, when the duly items of negligence charged in the complaint were the failure to provide and maintain a safe place to work, to furnish the deceased with safe appliances with which to do the work, the employment of incompetent foremen and fellow-servants to assist the intestate, and a failure to promulgate and enforce proper rules.
Appeal by the defendant, the United Engineering and Contracting Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 7th day of November, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury for $7,500, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 18th day of November, 1907, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Theron G. Strong, for the appellant.
Thomas J. O'Neill, for the 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).
The action was brought under the Employers' Liability Act (Laws of 1902, chap. 600), 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, proceeded 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 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 coemployees. 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 oE 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., concurred.