Case Name: Charles C. Swanson, Respondent, v. The Von Hoveling American Composition Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-06-12
Citations: 221 N.Y. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles C. Swanson, Respondent, v. The Von Hoveling American Composition Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Charles C. Swanson, Respondent, v. The Von Hoveling American Composition Company, Appellant.
(Argued May 24, 1917;
decided June 12, 1917.)
Swanson v. Von Hoveling Am. Composition Co. ,166 App. Div. 900, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 4, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant, his employer. Defendant was engaged in painting certain large oil tanks which had just been placed in four holds of the steamship Horley lying at the Robins dry dock, Brooklyn. The steamship was being converted into a tank ship. Plaintiff was a painter in the employ of the defendant, and on the day in question was painting one of the large tanks, about twenty-five feet high, located in No. 2 hold, and while so engaged was standing upon a swinging scaffold, which was hanging near the top of the tank and suspended by ropes at both ends. Plaintiff had been working upon this scaffold for about a half hour when the scaffold broke and fell, whereupon the plaintiff was precipitated to the bottom of the hold. The cause of action arises out of the alleged violation upon the part of the defendant of its statutory duty to provide its employees a safe and suitable scaffold as required by sections 18 and 19 of the Labor Law. The defendant did not construct or place the scaffold; it had been constructed and used by the ironworkers in building the tanks; but it is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant adopted the scaffold for the use of its painters, and so was responsible to them for its safety.
Bertrand L. Pettigrew and Walter L. Glenney for appellant.
Frederick S. Martyn for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ. Not sitting: Crane, J.