Hyperlawhypertext legal database Sweet v. General Electric Co. 149 N.Y.S. 609

← Cases

Sweet v. General Electric Co.

149 N.Y.S. 609 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1914-11-11 Docket No. 276-109 English

Delivered by WOODWARD, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 609
SWEET v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
(No. 276-109.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 11, 1914.)

Headnote

Master and Servant (§ 116[1] ) — Injuries to Servant — Save Peace to Work . —Statute.
A ladder furnished by an employer for use by its employes in reaching a platform where interior painting was being done, the spurs of which ladder had been worn down so that they were not sufficient to keep the foot from slipping, was a defect in the employer’s plant for which it was liable under the Labor Law.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 207; Dec. Dig. § 116.*]
Appeal from Trial Term, Schenectady County.
Action by George Sweet against the General Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J„ and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
James O. Carr, of Schenectady (John D. Miller, of Schenectady, of counsel), for appellant.
Leary & Fullerton, of Saratoga Springs (James A. Leary, of Sara-toga Springs, of counsel), for "respondent.

This action, brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant, has resulted in a verdict of $2,000 in favor of the plaintiff. ■ It is brought under the provisions of the Labor Law, as recently amended, and under the authorities it is not to be doubted that the ladder furnished by the defendant was defective as a part of the plant of the latter. The plaintiff was engaged in doing interior painting in one of the defendant’s shops. In doing this work a platform had been erected, and ladders were used to reach' the platform. Stepladders had been used, but these were taken away by other painters to be used in another part of the plant. One of plaintiff’s fellow workmen asked the defendant’s foreman for a ladder, and one was produced from another part of the defendant’s plant. When placed for the purpose of permitting the plaintiff to ascend to the platform, it slipped upon the smooth hardwood floor and fell, causing the plaintiff’s injuries. The ladder had been equipped with spurs at the foot to prevent slipping, but the evidence was such as to justify the jury in finding that these spurs had worn down so that they were not sufficient for the purpose for which they were designed, and this, under the statute, is a defect in the defendant’s plant for which it is answerable.

No errors are pointed out in the record, and, the jury having found in favor of the plaintiff, there is nothing remaining except for this court to affirm the judgment.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed. All concur.

Statutes and regulations cited