Case Name: Patrick O'Connor, as Administrator, Appellant, v. Herman Schnepel, Respondent
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-05
Citations: 12 Misc. 356
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick O’Connor, as Administrator, Appellant, v. Herman Schnepel, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
Patrick O’Connor, as Administrator, Appellant, v. Herman Schnepel, Respondent.
(New York Superior Court
General Term,
May, 1895.)
Through, the negligence of the servants of a contractor engaged in repairing a chimney under a contract with the landlord, soot and other substances were allowed to fall into a stove in the apartment of a tenant, causing flames to burst out into the room, in consequence of which the tenant’s son, who was ill at the time, received a great shock and was compelled to inhale the sooty vapor, smoke and flames, causing his death. Held, that the landlord was- not liable for the negligence of the contractor’s servants, and that no recovery against him for the injury could be had.
Appeal from judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint.
It appears that on November 1, 1893, while a chimney on premises owned by the defendant was being repaired by his contractor, soot and other substances came down the chimney and filled the plaintiff’s room with quantities of sooty vapor, and that by reason of the shock and inhalation of such matter the plaintiff’s son, who was ill at the time, died shortly thereafter.
It also appears that the defendant was the landlord of the property, that the decedent’s father was his tenant at the time of the accident, and that the injuries were sustained while defendant’s property was undergoing repairs.
The trial judge dismissed the complaint upon the opening of plaintiff’s counsel; and from the judgment entered on such dismissal the present appeal is taken.
L. W. Reddimgton, for appellant.
Jerolomam, & Arrowsmith, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,.
From all that appears on the record the defendant was not charged with any negligence himself. The complaint avers that certain servants or employees were engaged in repairing the chimney, and that through the negligence and carelessness of the said servants or employees while in the pursuit of their employment, great quantities of soot or other substances or matter from said chimney fell with great force down the said chimney or flue into plaintiff's stove, filling his room with said soot, dirt and smoke, causing flames to bhrst out from said stove into said room or rooms; in consequence of which the intestate received a great shock, was compelled to inhale great quantities of said soot and of gas, sooty vapor, smoke and flames, and, as a result of such injuries and of said shock and said inhalation, said intestate died shortly afterwards.
The action is not placed upon any duty of defendant as landlord to use diligence to prevent such an accident. If there be such duty it is not specified in the complaint.
On the trial it was admitted that the work done in the chimney was done under a contract with the defendant, and that the negligence which caused the soot to fall was that of the contractor or his servants. This statement shows that the doing of the repairs, if they were not negligently made, could not have involved any liability upon the landlord for the soot; he had a right to think that the work would he done in a proper manner.
Hnder the circumstances we find no error, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
Sedgwick, Oh. J., and MoAdam, J., concur.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.