Case Name: Louis Weiler, Resp't, v. John A. Isley, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-01
Citations: 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 595
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louis Weiler, Resp’t, v. John A. Isley, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 6
Pages: 595–599

Head Matter:
Louis Weiler, Resp’t, v. John A. Isley, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,
Filed January, 1887.)
1. Master and servant—Duty of employer to furnish scaffold.
An employer is bound to furnish to his employees safe tools, machinery and appliances for their use. This includes a scaffolding built by the employer for his servants to work upon. If such scaffolding is not safe and substantial, by reason whereof an employee without fault suffers injuries, the employer is liable for the damage caused thereby, if the exercise of due care on the part of the employer would have prevented the injury. Follett, J., dissents, on the ground that defendant was not liable for the negligent act of his employee.
Appeal from a judgment on a verdict in Onondaga county court for $450 for plaintiff, and an order denying motion made on the minutes for a new trial. Action for damages sustained by plaintiff in falling from a scaffold, caused by the alleged negligence of defendant. The injuries were received April 25, 1885.. Plaintiff had been at work for defendant about four weeks; he was told to go upon the scaffold to shingle a house; he had worked about two minutes when the scaffold gave way. Plaintiff was not a carpenter, but was employed as a helper to carry timber and shingles. He testified he did not know anything about scaffolds in this country. Defendant was a contractor residing in the fifth ward of Syracuse, and hired plaintiff, and he testified he did not construct the scaffold; he was present when it fell. He had a foreman by the name of Knobel. He testified he superintended the building of the scaffold, and explained how it was built. That he was superintendent, and that “Mr. Isley sent me to build it with the boy. I superintended the building of this scaffold. Young Isley and I built it. I told him what to do, and he did it. ”
Defendant moved for a non-suit, and his motion was denied and an exception was taken.
Hoyt, Beach & Hine, for app’lt; M. E. & O. W. Driscoll, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.
Defendant was under obligations to plaintiff to furnish safe tools, machinery, appliances and structures for his use. To furnish a scaffold that was reasonably safe before directing the plaintiff to occupy it. Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N. Y., 400.
Plaintiff was bound to exercise due and reasonable care in its use.
The burden of showing that the injuries were not, by reason of want of care of plaintiff was upon him, and the jury were told to find he was free from contributory negligence before the plaintiff should recover. The verdict has passed, and we must assume that the jury found the plaintiff received the injuries in question without any fault on his part. Whether or not the scaffold was unsafe and unfit for the use which the defendant directed the plaintiff to make of it, was a question of fact for the jury. Binzing v. Steinway & Sons, 101 N. Y., 552.
Attention is called to Malone v. Hathaway (64 N. Y., 5), but we think it is not decisive of this case. There the negligence was that of a co-employee whose duty it was to inspect and repair, and an omission of that duty caused the death of the plaintiff's intestate.
In Crispin v. Babbitt (81 .N Y., 516), it was the personal unauthorized and careless act of a co-employee which caused the injuries complained of, and that negligent act was held not to be the act of the defendant, but of a co-employee, and hence no liability upon the part of the defendant. In the case before us, upon evidence legitimately bearing upon the question, the jury have found that the defendant did not exercise proper care and prudence in regard to the scaffold before he directed the plaintiff to enter upon its use. Hence, defendant's liability. ' Pantzer v. Tilly Foster Iron Co., 99 N. Y., 368; Probst y. Delamater, 100 N. Y., 266.
The jury upon the evidence before them may have found that the defendant omitted to use proper care and prudence, in regard to the scaffold, before he gave the direction to the plaintiff to go upon and use it.
If the defendant like a prudent, cautious builder, had himself gone over the scaffold, and made a suitable and careful inspection of it, he might have, and probably would have discovered the defect in its construction, seen the dangerous condition in which his foreman had left it, and made such additions and changes as would have rendered Jit safe and secure.
Plaintiff was young in experience, immature and under the direction of the defendant, who had better experience and judgment, entered upon the weak and insecure, as well as inadequate structure and received injuries. The verdict finds the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence, and that the defendant omitted to do his full duty in the premises, and we think the verdict should stand.
Judgment and order of the county court of Onondaga county affirmed, with costs.
Boardman, J., concurs; Follett, J., dissents.