Case Name: Alfred R. Warner, Respondent, v. Victoria L. Lucey and Another, Individually and as Administrators, etc., of James Lucey, Deceased, and Others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-11-15
Citations: 207 A.D. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alfred R. Warner, Respondent, v. Victoria L. Lucey and Another, Individually and as Administrators, etc., of James Lucey, Deceased, and Others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 207
Pages: 241–248

Head Matter:
Alfred R. Warner, Respondent, v. Victoria L. Lucey and Another, Individually and as Administrators, etc., of James Lucey, Deceased, and Others, Appellants.
Third Department,
November 15, 1923.
Landlord and tenant — action to recover damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff when freight elevator in public garage fell — elevator was used beyond capacity with knowledge of lessors — lessors knew that elevator was unfit for use intended — both lessors and lessees are liable — covenant to repair does not relieve lessors from liability.
Both the lessors and the lessees of a public garage are liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff when a freight elevator in the garage fell, where it appears that the lessors had knowledge at the time the lease was made that the elevator was unfit for the purpose of carrying automobiles weighing more than 4,000 pounds, that they knew its capacity and condition and had been warned of its insufficiency and the lessees either knew of the unsafe condition and defects in the elevator or should have known of them, and that the accident in question occurred while an automobile weighing about 4,300 pounds was being lowered from an upper floor to the main floor of the garage.
A covenant in the lease which required the lessees to keep the premises in repair does not relieve the lessors from liability to a third person for a defect which existed when the lease was made.
Hasbrouck, J., dissents; Hinman, J., dissents in part, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Victoria L. Lucey and another, individually and as administrators, etc., from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Schenectady on the 10th day of June, 1922, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office denying defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
The defendants Lucey are the owners and lessors of a building in the city of Troy used as a garage. The complaint was dismissed as to the defendants Lucey in their capacity as administrators. The defendants Dreher and Richter leased from the defendants Lucey this garage on or about the 1st day of May, 1921, covenanting to keep the premises in repair during the term. The accident happened May 17, 1921. The plaintiff, with Stedman, the owner of a Cadillac car, which weighed 4,300 or 4,400 pounds, went to this garage to get the car, which had been stored for the evening . upon an upper floor. The car was placed on the elevator and run down. When they reached the ground floor the elevator settled from six to eight inches below the floor. Stedman was sitting in the car; the plaintiff was standing on the floor of the , elevator. The man operating the elevator went into the basement, returned and attempted to raise the elevator even with the floor. Whether or not he succeeded, the elevator sagged again. The operator attempted to control the elevator, but it started to descend slowly at first, and then with greater rapidity, to the bottom of the elevator pit, some eighteen feet below the ground floor. The plaintiff was injured, either by being thrown or by jumping from the elevator into the basement. There were no doors attached to the elevator. This building had been leased for a garage for a number of years. One Campbell was the lessee prior to May 1, 1921. He testified that he told Lucey in January, 1921, that the elevator was not fit for the use for which it was intended, with the increased weight of cars, and that he showed Lucey a letter from the State inspector pointing out repairs that must be made to the elevator. The carrying capacity of the elevator was 4,000 pounds. Many automobiles weigh more than 4,000 pounds. This elevator was repaired in 1914 or 1915 by Mr. Irwin, a competent man. He made repairs and improvements, which at that time rendered the elevator a suitable and sufficient vehicle up to its capacity of 4,000 pounds, but not more. This was done with the knowledge and consent of the lessors. The elevator cage at that time was suspended by two cables, the hanging being in the center of the top of the cage. He extended one side of the floor of the cage two feet, leaving the hanging, however, as it was. This was done to permit “ longer and heavier cars ” to be carried and because the lessors wanted “ a general garage business conducted in that building.” Carrying a car heavier than 4,000 pounds threw the cage out of balance, caused it to bind in the guides, thus subjecting it to a constant overstrain. This constant overstrain loosened the guides and overtested the parts of the elevator. The structural parts of the elevator were not again changed or strengthened until the time of the accident. Mr. Irwin testified that in his opinion the elevator fell because it was not of sufficient carrying capacity to support an automobile weighing 4,300 pounds, together with two or three men. The witness Dodge testified that, at the time of the accident, he heard something give way in the mechanism and “ down the elevator went; ” it was a creaking noise.
Ainsworth, Carlisle, Sullivan & Archibald [Benjamin P. Wheat of counsel], for the appellants.
Judge & Lyons [John E. Judge of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Van Kirk, J.:
The case was tried as a negligence action and submitted to the jury on the theory that the elevator" was not of sufficient strength and carrying capacity to answer the purposes intended, namely, to be used in a public garage for storage of cars, of the usual weights, on upper floors reached by the elevator. The jury was justified in finding upon the evidence that,, when the lease was made, the elevator, to the knowledge of the defendants Lucey, was unfit for the use intended; that they knew its capacity and condition and had been warned of its insufficiency, but they, without making any changes therein, made the lease to the defendants Dreher and Richter; that, while there was evidence tending to show that there was a loose brake shoe and a broken safety device, these defects were the natural consequence of overstraining the elevator and would not have developed and caused the elevator to fall had it been of sufficient carrying capacity and fit for the use intended; that the constant overloading of the car would cause a belt to slip, a brake band to loosen or the supporting cables to break -under circumstances such as would not have caused either of such defects if the elevator itself had been of sufficient capacity; that the elevator fell and the injuries were received by plaintiff because of its insufficiency and unfitness. The garage was intended by the lessors and tenants for public patronage, to be used by any one who applied and paid for the storage of his car, whether of the lighter or heavier weight. It was a public use or place, as is an inn or warehouse. From this use both parties derived a profit; the lessors through the rent reserved. This plaintiff was in the position of a patron properly on the premises; he was lawfully there. •
The lessees are liable for unsafe conditions or defects known to them, or which ought to have been known to them, while they occupied the leased premises. The lessors are liable for the consequences of the unfitness and insufficiency of the elevator when put to the uses they intended, a condition which to their knowledge existed when the lease was made, and for which use they received stipulated rentals. (Swords v. Edgar, 59 N. Y. 28; Barrett v. Lake Ontario Beach Imp. Co., 174 id. 310.) A covenant by a lessee to keep the premises in repair does not relieve a lessor of liability to a third party for a defect which existed when the lease was made. (Swords v. Edgar, supra, 36, 37.) In the Barrett Case (supra, 314) the court said: " If the premises are rented for a public use for which he [the lessor] knows that they are unfit and dangerous, he is guilty of negligence and may become responsible to persons suffering injury, while rightfully using them. Such instances would be where he lets a warehouse, so imperfectly constructed that the floors will not support the weight necessarily upon them; or where he lets a building for public amusements, or exhibitions, or other public purposes, and its construction is so unsafe, structurally, as to be the cause of injury to any one." The law and the evidence justified the verdict.
There are a number of exceptions which the appellants urge as grounds for reversal. The record is long and the case was difficult for both the attorneys and the court. We have examined each of the exceptions urged and have read carefully the charge of the court and its rulings and explanations in answer to the appellants' requests to charge. We think the case was fairly submitted to the jury and that the real question upon which liability rests was prominently and clearly presented to them; and have concluded that there are no errors in the rulings of the trial court, not corrected, which affect a substantial right of the appellants. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 106.) In our view the result of the trial is fair and just.
It is not claimed that the amount of the verdict is excessive.
The judgment and order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Cochrane, P. J., and McCann, J., concur; Hinman, J., dissents in part with an opinion; Hasbrouck, J., dissents on the ground that Roulier, who operated the elevator upon this occasion, was a volunteer.