Case Name: Mary Croce, as Executrix, etc., of Andrew Croce, Deceased, Appellant, v. James Buckley, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-11-05
Citations: 115 A.D. 354
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Croce, as Executrix, etc., of Andrew Croce, Deceased, Appellant, v. James Buckley, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 354–359

Head Matter:
Mary Croce, as Executrix, etc., of Andrew Croce, Deceased, Appellant, v. James Buckley, Respondent.
First Department,
November 5, 1906.
Negligence—master and servant — elevator used as scaffold — Labor Law.
A master engaged in putting a fourth story on a building, who uses the top of a freight elevator in an adjoining building for a scaffold on which he directs his employees to work, which elevator is movable from any story by pulling a rope, does not furnish a safe scaffold within the meaning of section 18 of the Labor Law. An arrangement made by the master with the superintendent of the building, allowing him the exclusive use of the elevator, which agreement was not observed, does not exculpate him from negligence in using such an unsafe scaffold.
The plaintiff, Whose intestate was killed by the moving of such elevator, while using the.same as a scaffold as directed by the master, need not show the cause of the starting of the elevator, in order to recover.
Scott, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Mary Croce, as executrix, etc., of Andrew Croce, deceased, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Mew York on the 1st day of March, 1906, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the. court after á trial at the Mew York Trial Term.
Richard J. Donovan, for the appellant.
Theodore H. Lord, for the respondent.

Opinion:
. O'Brien, P. J.:
From the facts as stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Scott it is evident that the elevator was a scaffold within section 18 of the Labor Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 415), which is as follows: "A person employing or directing another to perform labor of any kind in the erection, repairing, altering or painting of a house, building or structure, shall, not furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders or other mechanical contrivances which are unsafe, unsuit able or improper, and which are not so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to-the life and limb of a person so employed or engaged."
As the elevator could be set in motion from any one of the four floors of the building by simply pulling a rope, it was not, I think, a safe and proper scaffold within the contemplation of the above statute, even though it be admitted that it was in sound condition as an elevator and that, while at rest, it was suitable for the use to which it was put, because, unless the power were shut off, it was liable to be moved. -Hor was the arrangement made by the defendant with the superintendent of "the building for its exclusive use, to which defendant testified, but which it was established was not observed, a sufficient discharge of the duty imposed upon the. defendant by the statute. It was unsuitable, as a scaffold, by reason of its mobility, and this was the immediate cause of the accident. It was not essential to the plaintiff's cause of action to show the cause of the sudden starting of the elevator ; her case was established by showing that the scaffold, as such, was defective or improper and that the accident resulted therefrom.
Upon the evidence there was a question as to whether or not the defendant fulfilled his duty by safeguards which would prevent the elevator being set in motion. It follows, therefore, that the judgment dismissing the complaint should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.
Ingraham, Clarke and Houghton, JJ., concurred; Soott, J., dissented.