Dunn v. Connell — 46 N.Y.S. 684

Majority

p. 684

DUNN v. CONNELL.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

July 15, 1897.)

Headnote

Injury to Employe—Negligence.

One wlio employs a person, not a plumber, and not familiar with the use of chemicals, to work about a urinal, which is rendered unsafe by the use in it of chemicals to keep it free from odors, is'guilty of negligence.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by William Dunn, an infant, by Elizabeth Moore, his guardian, against Patrick J. Connell. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and McCARTHY, J.

William G-. McGrea, for appellant.

Joseph P. McDonough, for respondent.

This was a question of fact, and whether Connell was present or not at the time of the accident was a question for the jury. They having found, on the facts, against the defendant, and although the evidence was slight, it is enough to sustain the judgment. This was a toilet or urinal where they used some kind of chemicals to keep it clear and free from disagreeable odors. It was dangerous, and not a safe place for the plaintiff, who was not a plumber or professional mechanic. He had the right, not knowing or being informed of the use of any chemicals, to assume that it was safe in every part of it, which, as an actual fact, it was demonstrated it was not, and _which must be conceded it was not.

We think tlie defendant was clearly liable, and under the facts the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

VAN WYCK, O. J., concurs.