Case Name: CROCE v. BUCKLEY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-11-05
Citations: 100 N.Y.S. 898
Docket Number: 
Parties: CROCE v. BUCKLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 100
Pages: 898–903

Head Matter:
(115 App. Div. 354)
CROCE v. BUCKLEY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 5, 1906.)
1. Master and Servant — Injuries to Servant — Sufficient Appliances — Statutory Requirements—Scaffoldings.
A freight elevator used by workmen as a place on which to stand while cutting a hole in a wall is a scaffold, within the meaning of Laws 1897, p. 467, c. 415, § 18, providing that an employer shall not furnish a scaffolding which is unsafe or improper.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 207.]
2. Same—Sufficiency.
A freight elevator having an entrance from four floors, which is in charge of no particular person, and is so arranged that it can be started In motion from any floor by pulling a rope reached through the entrance from the outside of the shaft, though it may be a suitable freight elevator, is not a safe scaffolding on which to place men to work at cutting a hole through the wall, within the meaning of Laws 1897, p. 467, c. 415, § 18, providing that an employer shall not furnish a scaffolding which is unsafe or improper.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 207, 208.]
3. Same—Safeguarding Dangerous Appliance—Arrangement with Others.
An arrangement by a contractor with the superintendent of a building, that a freight elevator on which the contractor placed men to work at cutting a hole through a wall; and which was liable to be moved by others, should be used exclusively by such workmen, does not constitute a discharge of the duty imposed by Laws 1897, p. 467, c. 415, § 18, providing that an employer shall not furnish a scaffolding which is unsafe or improper.
4. Same—Actions—Burden op Proop.
Under Laws 1897, p. 467, c. 415, § 18, providing that an employer shall not furnish scaffolding which is unsafe or improper, one suing to recover for injuries sustained by her intestate through the unexpected starting in motion of a freight elevator used as a scaffold, and which was liable to be set in motion by others than those working thereon, is not required to prove as part of her case the cause of such sudden starting.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant §§ 894-900.]
5. Same—Evidence—Sufficiency.
Plaintiff's intestate, having been placed with another on a freight elevator to cut a hole through the wall, was injured by the sudden starting of the elevator to the top of the building, and the breaking of the supporting rope. The elevator was so arranged that it could be started from any floor without going upon it. A contractor had arranged for the exclusive use of the elevator by his men, but, without his knowledge, his agreement was not entirely carried out. Nothing appeared as to the cause of the elevator’s sudden start beyond the fact that it was not started by those upon it. Held sufficient to present a question as to whether the contractor had fulfilled the duty of furnishing a safe scaffold, imposed by Laws 1897, p. 467, c. 415, § 18, providing that an employer shall not furnish a scaffolding which is unsafe or improper.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 1010-1025.]
Scott, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Mary Croce, as executrix of Andrew Croce, deceased. From a judgment entered upon dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
Richard J. Donovan, for appellant.
Theodore H. Lord, for respondent.

Opinion:
O'BRIEN, P. J.
From the facts, as stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice SCOTT, it is evident that the elevator was a scaffold within section 18 of the labor law (chapter 415, p. 467, Laws 1897), which is as follows:
"A person employing or directing another to perform labor of any kind in the erection, repairing, altering or painting of a house, building or structure, shall not furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders or other mechanical contrivances which are unsafe, unsuitable or improper, and which are not so constructed, placed or operated as to give proper protection to the life and limb of a person so employed or engaged."
As the elevator could be set in motion from any one of the four floors of the building by simply pulling a rope, it was not, I think, a safe and proper scaffold, within the contemplation of the above statute, even though it be admitted that it was in sound condition as an elevator, and that, while at rest, it was suitable for the use to which it was put, because, unless the power were shut off, it was liable to be moved. Nor was the arrangement made by the defendant with the superintendent of the building for its exclusive use, to which defendant testified, but which it was established was not observed, a sufficient discharge of the duty imposed upon the defendant by the statute. It was unsuitable, as a scaffold, by reason of its mobility, and this was the immediate cause of the accident. It was not essential to the plaintiff's cause of action to show the cause of the sudden starting of the elevator; her case was established by showing that the scaffold, as such, was defective or improper, and that the accident resulted therefrom.
Upon the evidence there was a question as to whether or not the defendant fulfilled his duty by safeguards which would prevent the elevator being set in motion. It follows, therefore, that the judgment dismissing the complaint should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.
INGRAHAM, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.