Case Name: SARNO v. ATLANTIC STEVEDORING CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-11-29
Citations: 74 N.Y.S. 578
Docket Number: 
Parties: SARNO v. ATLANTIC STEVEDORING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 74
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
SARNO v. ATLANTIC STEVEDORING CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
November 29, 1901.)
Master and Servant—Defective Appliance—Negligence.
The negligence in case of giving way of a guy made of wire, injuring employe, is that of the master, it having confided to its foreman the sole right and duty of selecting a suitable guy, and determining when it should be replaced, and the accident being caused by his negligence in failing to replace the guy with a new one after it had been subjected to undue strain and broken, of all which the employé had no notice.
Goodrich, P. J„ dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Kings county.
Action by Giuseppi Sarno against the Atlantic Stevedoring Company. From judgment for plaintiff and order denying new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
The following is the opinion of the court below (SMITH, J.):
I do not think the selection of proper guys was a detail of the plaintiff’s work. He had no part in the selection. He exercised no discretion whatever. He was obliged to rely entirely upon the judgment of Fortuna, the foreman to whom this duty was delegated by the defendant. I am also of the opinion that this case is distinguishable from the case of, Cregan v. Marston, 126 N. Y. 568, 27 N. E. 952, 22 Am. St. Rep. 854. The guy in this case was made of wire. There is no evidence that under ordinary circumstances any necessity existed that it be frequently changed. There is no evidence that any of the workmen knew that there was a time limit of safety for its use. There is no evidence that any of the workmen could determine by observation when the limit of safety for any cause had been reached. There is no evidence that any of, the workmen could give notice and get a new guy, or that they had ever done so. So far as it appears by the evidence, the defendant confided to its foreman the sole right and duty, not only of selecting in the first instance a suitable guy, but of determining when it should be replaced. The accident in this case was undoubtedly caused by the negligence of the foreman in failing to replace a guy with a new guy after it had been subjected to undue strain and broken, of all which the plaintiff had not the slightest notice. The duty of furnishing proper appliances for the use of the servant, and of exercising reasonable care and prudence to protect the servant from avoidable injury, is a duty of the master, and cannot be delegated. In this case the duty was confided to the foreman, and his negligence in the performance thereof was not the negligence of a fellow servant, but is imputable to the master.
Motion for a new trial denied, and an extra allowance of five per cent, upon the recovery granted.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, and HIRSCHBERG, JJ.
Frank V. Johnson, for appellant.
Richard A. Rendich, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of SMITH, J., denying motion for new trial.
GOODRICH; P. J., dissents.