McHugh v. Grand Central Bldg. & Const. Co.

The plaintiff’s intestate was an employe of the defendant, which was engaged in the reconstruction of a building partially destroyed by fire. The roof of the building had been burned away and a portion of the floors and floor timbers. It was necessary to remove portions of the flooring from the various floors in order to ascertain to what extent the timbers had been’burned, and to remove those that had been destroyed, and to put new ones in their place. Masons were employed in' renovating the walls and fitting the new timbers, and when plaintiff’s intestate began work, two days prior to the accident, the defendant’s superintendent instructed him generally to help the masons, without giving him any specific directions as to what particular thing he should do. One floor timber on each floor in direct line had been removed for the purpose of making an opening down which waste timbers could be lowered from the various floors, and up which necessary timbers and materials for repairs .could be hauled. Loose planks were laid on the timbers where the flooring had been removed on the various floors, but with no effort to make a complete flooring. On the morning of the accident, a fellow laborer told the deceased that the masons wanted a horse upon which to place a scaffold plank, and told him to go up to the fourth floor and haul it up through the opening by a hand rope. The deceased stood on the bare beams and began hauling up the horse, his colaborer guiding it, when he suddenly pitched head foremost down the opening, sustaining injuries from which he shortly died. There was evidence that a' derrick was installed on one of the upper floors, with block and tackle, and used for the purpose of lifting and lowering the heavy timbers, and the particular negligence of the defendant relied upon by the plaintiff to sustain her. judgment is that there was a violation of section 30 of the labor law (Laws 1897, p. 468, c. 415, as amended by Laws 1899, p. 351, c. 193, § 1, and Laws 1905, p. 1184, c. 530, § 1), in failing to erect a barrier around the opening on each floor.

The defendant urged on the trial, and now insists, that this section of the labor law has no application to the situation proven, and we concur in that view. The building was in process of reconstruction. It was necessary to take up the flooring to ascertain to what extent the floor timbers had been charred and needed replacing. An opening was necessary through which to let down the damaged timbers and haul up the new ones. Floors could not be relaid until the floor timbers had been repaired. The shafts or openings in each'floor could not be inclosed until the floors were laid. Section 30 of the labor law contera

The statute in terms only refers to new buildings in process of construction in cities;. but, assuming that it applies also to the repairing or reconstructing of old buildings, it had no application to the situation proven in the building in which tire deceased was at work, and the defendant was under no obligation as to him to fence the opening which it had made and which he was using in hoisting the material, for the floor had not been laid and could not have been at the then stage of the work. It was therefore error to permit the-jury to consider whether or not the statute had been violated as an element in determining the defendant’s negligence. Besides, a barrier would not have helped the deceased, for he would have been obliged to stand over the opening and inside the barrier in order to haul up the horse with a rope hand over hand as he was doing. The doctrine of reasonably safe place in which to work had no application, because the situation was constantly changing and being necessarily made unsafe by the progress of the work.

The action is in form under the employer’s liability act, the notice under which is challenged. Assuming, however, the notice to be good, there is no proof of any negligence on the part of the defendant’s superintendent in directing the deceased to work in a manifestly unsafe place. It was not the superintendent, but a fellow laborer, who suggested to the-deceased to go to the fourth floor and to haul up the mason’s horse by hand.

The judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.