Case Name: Malone v. Hathaway
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-01
Citations: 6 Thomp. & Cook 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Malone v. Hathaway.
Judges: 
Reporter: Thompson & Cook's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 1–5

Head Matter:
Malone v. Hathaway.
Negligence — master and servant.
In an action to recover for the death of an employee of defendant, caused by the fall of a mash-tub in consequence of the timbers which supported it having become rotten from continued dampness, it was shown that the condition of the timbers could have been discovered by striking or boring into them. It appeared that defendant employed a competent carpenter who had charge of the repairs of the brewery. Held, (1) that the continued dampness was sufficient notice of the necessity of watchfulness, and an omission by defendant or his mechanics to test the condition of the timbers was negligence, and (2) that the employment of a competent mechanic did not relieve defendant from liability. He was bound to see that the mechanic did .his duty.
APPEAL by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The action was brought by Anne Malone, administratrix, etc., of Thomas Malone," deceased, against Henry B. Hathaway, surviving partner of the firm of Bevier & Co., to recover damages for the death of intestate, which was caused by the falling'of a mash-tub in the brewery of said firm, where he was then employed. The accident was shown to have been caused by a rotten post and timbers supporting the floor upon which the mash-tub was placed. There was at the time a large quantity of mash on the floor. The evidence showed that the rottenness of the timbers which was caused by the continual dampness which resulted from the character of the material placed on the floor above, could have been discovered at any time by striking or boring into the timbers, but that for a year before the 'accident no test had been made of the condition of the timbers.
It was shown on the part of defendant that the firm kept'a competent carpenter, whose duty it was to keep the building in repair, also a head brewer who had charge of the building with the carpenter ; that they were instructed to keep the building safe, that the firm, neither of whom were practical brewers or carpenters, supposed it was so. It was shown that the carpenter had before the accident notice that the mash-tub was liable to fall unless repairs were made. At the trial the court charged the jury that it was the duty of the master to see that the employee was not exposed to unreasonable risks, and that he was bound to furnish a safe and secure building, and that defendant was responsible for the neglect of the carpenter, and that the question was whether the carpenter failed to exercise reasonable prudence in not examining the timbers.
The case on a former appeal is reported 2 N. Y. Sup. 664.
H. R. Selden and J. C. Cochrane, for appellant,
cited De Graff v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 3 N. Y. Sup. 255; Unger v. Forty-second Street, etc., R. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 497; Warner v. Erie Railway Co., 39 id. 468; Wilson v. Merry, L. R., 1 Scotch & Div. App. 326; Wright v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 25 N. Y., 562; Laning v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 id. 521; Gallagher v. Piper, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 669; Frazier v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 38 Penn. St. 104; Moran v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 3 N. Y. Sup. 770.
James Breck PerTcins, for respondent.
Present—Mullin, P. J., E. Darwin Smith and Talcott, JJ.

Opinion:
Mullin, P. J.
All the questions of any importance presented by this appeal were disposed of by this court when the case was before us on a former occasion. On the second trial the judge merely gave effect to the views of this court as stated in the opinion of Talcott, J. We then held, and we have found no reason for changing our opinion, that the defendant did not discharge their whole duty to the men employed by them, by employing competent mechanics to keep the brewery in repair. They were bound to see that the mechanics so employed performed their duty.
The mash-tub fell because the timbers that supported it were rotten, and this rottenness was caused by the water lying on the timbers under the tub.
This continued dampness of the floor was sufficient notice of the necessity of constant watchfulness to guard against the rotting of the timber, and to call upon them to examine from time to time the condition of the timber, and if it was necessary to bore into the timbers to ascertain accurately their condition, it was the duty of the defendant or his mechanic to do it, and it was negligence to omit it.
It would be a reproach upon the administration of justice if defendant could escape, responsibility for such criminal carelessness as the proof discloses in this case.
The judgment must be affirmed.