Case Name: William Muhlens, Appellant, v. Obermeyer & Liebmann, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-05
Citations: 83 A.D. 88
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Muhlens, Appellant, v. Obermeyer & Liebmann, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 88–91

Head Matter:
William Muhlens, Appellant, v. Obermeyer & Liebmann, Respondent.
Negligence — duty of a master to provide a safe place for Ms servant in which to change Ms clothes—presumption from the falling of a floor.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while employed in the defendant’s brewery, it appeared that the defendant, for the purpose of increasing the air space, removed the floor over a portion of the boiler room, leaving a part of the floor material, consisting of cement and bricks, without any support from below; that upon the remaining portion of the floor a temporary laboratory had been constructed, leaving a small portion of the old flooring projecting beyond its walls.
The projecting portion did not have any other support than such as resulted from the adhesion of the brick and cement to the adjoining walls.
It further appeared that the plaintiff was engaged in an employment which caused his clothing to become saturated with moisture, and that lie, together with other employees, had, for a period of over six months, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant’s foreman, been accustomed to go upon the projecting flooring, which was directly over the boilers, and there change his clothes, hanging his wet garments upon nails driven in the outside walls of the laboratory; that on the day in question, while the plaintiff was upon the projecting flooring engaged in changing his clothes, the flooring gave way, precipitating the plaintiff upon the boilers below and causing him to be seriously injured.
There was nothing in the appearance of the projecting flooring from the upper side to indicate that it was less safe than the remaining flooring. There was some evidence that there were other places where the plaintiff might have hung his clothes to dry, but there was no evidence that there was any place especially provided for that purpose or which was so well adapted thereto as the place in question.
Held, that it was error for the court to dismiss the complaint;
That the defendant having had knowledge of the custom of its employees to go iipon the projecting flooring for the purpose of changing their clothes, it was incumbent upon it to exercise a reasonable degree of care in making the place reasonably safe;
That the question whether it had performed this duty was one of fact for the jury;
That the falling of the projecting flooring, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, established a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the defendant, requiring the cause to be submitted to the j ury.
Appeal by the plaintiff, William Muhlens, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 22d day of November, 1901, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the Kings County Trial Term.
James C. Cropsey [F. W. Catlin with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Robert Thorne [Frank V. Johnson with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Woodward, J.:
The plaintiff was nonsuited, and upon this appeal he has a' right to have it presumed that the jury would have found the facts winch the evidence would justify in his favor, and we are of opinion that the case presented was one for the determination of the jury. The jury might have found from the evidence that the plaintiff was. employed in the defendant's brewery, in an occupation that saturated bis boots and clothing, and that the plaintiff, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, was in the habit of removing his boots and clothing and hanging them up directly over the boiler room, in a position where they would dry, and substituting dry clothing to go home in, making the change in the morning before going to work. While it may be that this was not absolutely necessary, it was a convenience and evidently conduced to the comfort of the employee, and the question presented is whether the injury resulting to the plaintiff, while engaged in making this change of clothing, was due to the negligence of the defendant in respect to any duty which it owed to the plaintiff. It appears that at some time t-here was a floor over the entire boiler room, but some years ago, for the purpose of increasing the air space, the floor over a portion of the boiler room was removed, leaving a part of the floor materials, consisting of cement and bricks, without any support beneath. Upon the portion of the floor remaining a temporary' laboratory had been constructed of rough boards, leaving a smal projection of the old flooring outside of its walls, and the plaintiff, or some of his fellow-employees, had arranged a couple of planks to reach this projecting flooring, where they went daily to change their clothes, hanging them upon nails driven in the outside walls of the laboratory and directly overhanging the open space above the boilers, where they would have the benefit of the heat arising from the room below. It appears from the evidence that this portion of the floor material which was outside of the laboratory was without any other support than such as resulted from the adhesion of the brick and •cement to the adjoining walls, and the question presented upon this appeal is whether the defendant owed the duty to the plaintiff, in the performance of this incident of his daily employment, to afford hinx a reasonably safe place in which to change and di'y lxis clothes, and whether, if such a duty was owed to the plaintiff, it was disclxai'ged under the facts disclosed. While there was some evidence that there were other places where the plaintiff might have hung his boots and clothes, there is no evidence that there was any place specially provided or which was so well calculated to produce the •desired results. It seems to us entirely clear that the duty of the master to furnish a reasonably safe place in which the servant is to perform his labor extends to the necessary incidents of that labor, .and the defendant having had knowledge, through its representatives at least, of the custom prevailing in its establishment, the duty arose of exercising a reasonable degree of care that the place used was reasonably safe.
The facts appeax, from the evidence, that oh a given day the plaintiff repaired to this place for the pux'pose of changing his •clothes, as had been his custom for more than six months, with the knowledge and consent of his foreman, and while so occupied the projecting floor gave way, precipitating the plaintiff upon the boilers below, doing him a serious injury. There was nothing in the appearance of the floor, from the upper side, to indicate that it was less safe than the remaining portions, and the defendant having removed the floor supports, and having knowledge of the use which was being made of the space, as an incident of the plaintiff's employment, we think it was for the jury to determine whether the defendant had' discharged the duties of a master and had exercised reasonable care in providing a place for the plaintiff to change and dry his clothes. We are of opinion that the evidence warranted the jury in holding that the defendant had provided this place for the performance of an incident of the plaintiff's labor (Cunningham v. Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co., 49 App. Div. 380), and that the falling of this floor, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, established a prima facie case demanding its submission to the jury. (Lentino v. Port Henry Iron Ore Co., 71 App. Div. 466, 467, and authority cited.)
The judgment appealed from should be reversed.
Goodrich, P. J., Bartlett, Jenks and Hooker, JJ., concurred.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.