Case Name: HARVEY v. McCONCHIE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-12-19
Citations: 79 N.Y.S. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARVEY v. McCONCHIE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 79
Pages: 241–244

Head Matter:
(77 App. Div. 361.)
HARVEY v. McCONCHIE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 19, 1902.)
1. Servant—Assumption op Risk—Obvious Danobr—Instructions.
In an action by a journeyman painter against his employer, a job painter, for injuries sustained by the falling of a ladder resting on a defective support, the court’s charge that: “If a painter goes upon a ladder, * * * there is an obvious risk * * * about it that he assumes, * * * if there is no latent defect. There is no testimony here * * * that there was any defect * * * which could not have been discovered, and, whatever defects there were, were perfectly obvious. The plaintiff and the defendant erected the appliance, * * * and it is for you to say whether or not, under these circumstances, it was not one of the obvious risks. * * * The plaintiff must look out for himself. He must not go into obvious risks if he does not want to assume them,”— fairly left to the jury the question as to whether the risk was an obvious one.
Hatch, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, New York county.
Action by Alexander Harvey against Samuel McConchie. From a judgment in favor of defendant and an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, McEAUGHUIN, O’BRIEN* and INGRAHAM, JJ.
Theodore B. Chancellor, for appellant.
Joseph Fettretch, for respondent.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, J.
This judgment should be affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice HATCH. The court charged the jury that:
"The plaintiff and the defendant together erected the appliance. Each knew there were no nails in it; each knew there were no ropes tied there; and it is for you to say whether or not, under those circumstances, it was not one of the obvious risks of the employment, which was part of the contract of hiring which the plaintiff assumed, because, if the plaintiff did not assume the obvious risk of hiring, then an employer would be an insurer. » plaintiff must look out for himself. He must not go into a business with obvious risks, if he does not want to assume them. It is for you to consider whether or whatever risks there were, he did not see them."
I think this was correct. Assuming that there was a violation by the defendant of the duty to furnish to his employés a safe scaffold upon which to do his work, a failure to furnish such a scaffold would justify the jury in finding the defendant negligent. The ordinary rule, however, that as between employer and employé an employé assumes an obvious risk in doing the work which he is employed to do applies. The plaintiff testified that he helped to erect this scaffold; that he knew as much about it as the defendant; that he expressed doubt about its safety, and only used it when assured by the defendant that it was safe. The defendant denied that he gave such assurance, and the question whether such assurance was given was submitted to the jury, who have found a verdict for the defendant. While this was a question for the jury, I think it was left to them by a charge that was free from error, and that their verdict should not be disturbed. The plaintiff had assisted in the construction of this scaffold; was familiar with the details of its construction; and, if he used it with full knowledge of its condition, without any assurance from the defendant that it was safe, or a proper one under the circumstances, the jury were justified in finding that the plaintiff had assumed the risk in the use of the appliance as it existed when he used it. I do not find that the court charged that whatever defects existed in this appliance were perfectly obvious, but that question was, I think, fairly left to the jury.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O'BRIEN and McEAUGHLIN, JJ., concur. •