Case Name: Michael J. Ryan, Respondent, v. Henry C. Irons and John R. Todd, Defendants, Impleaded with George H. Toop, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-06-15
Citations: 114 A.D. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael J. Ryan, Respondent, v. Henry C. Irons and John R. Todd, Defendants, Impleaded with George H. Toop, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 165–168

Head Matter:
Michael J. Ryan, Respondent, v. Henry C. Irons and John R. Todd, Defendants, Impleaded with George H. Toop, Appellant.
First Department,
June 15, 1906.
Negligence—injury to employee of one contractor on stairway under construction by another contractor — safe place to work — assumption of risk.
A contractor engaged in erecting a stairway in a building is not bound to furnish a safe place to work to the employee of another contractor engaged in plastering. Hence, when such employee, instead of erecting a scaffold on which to do his work, uses for that purpose a stairway in the process of construction by another contractor, which is incomplete and not used for travel, he does so at his peril and cannot recover for injuries received by the giving way of an unfinished tread of the stairway. A person cannot be held liable for negligence unless some duty devolved upon him.
O’Brien, P. J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, George H. Toop, from a judgment of ' the Supreme Court in part in favor of the plaintiff (the complaint having been dismissed as to the defendants Irons and Todd), entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 6th day of December, 1905, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 5th day of December, 1905, denying the said defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Frank Verner Johnson, for the appellant.
Gilbert Ray Hawes, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Houghton, J.:
The defendant Toop was the contractor for the iron work, including stairways, for a hotel in the city of Hew York, in process of erection. The plaintiff was in the employ of one who had the plastering contract for the same building.
The defendant had erected the iron stringers and risers of the stairway, and had put in position, but not bolted, the sheet iron treads upon which, when finished, the stone treads were to be placed. These sheet iron treads were not intended to walk upon, but were for the purpose of protecting the stone treads from fire underneath, and before the stone treads were placed on them they were to be bolted to the iron framework.
The plaintiff was directed by his employer to plaster the side walls of the stairway between the two upper floors. This he proceeded .to do, and, instead of erecting any staging or placing any plank, he attempted to perform the work by standing on this uncompleted stairway, and his weight forced one of the unbolted sheet iron treads through the opening and he fell to the floor below and sustained the injuries for which he brings this action.
The stairway was not used or in condition to be used for ascent or descent in the building. Another stairway had been provided for that purpose.
Plaintiff insists that the defendant was negligent in not bolting the sheet iron treads, or in not fitting wooden treads over them, or in not barring the stairway, or in not maintaining a-sign of danger. We do not think the defendant was bound to do any of these things. The difficulty with plaintiff's position is that the defendant was under no obligation to him to provide a safe place in which he might perform his work. A person cannot be held liable for injuries received because of a defective way or structure unless it be his duty to erect or maintain such way or structure in a reasonably safe condition.
It was not a situation where the defendant led the plaintiff into the belief that he might use the stairway with safety or where an insecure covering had been placed over a hole in a floor over which one might be expected to walk. The stairway was in process of erection and incomplete, and not in condition to be used for travel, and was not used for that purpose. The plaintiff could use it to reach the wall which he was plastering if he desired, instead of erecting any other structure for that purpose; but if he did use it, he did so at his own risk and at his own peril.
Under the facts disclosed the plaintiff failed to prove any cause of action against the defendant and his complaint should have been dismissed.
The judgment and order must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Patterson, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred; O'Brien, P. J., dissented.