Gorman v. McArdle

This action was brought on account of injuries received by plaintiff on September 9, 1889, in jumping from a fourth story window of defendant’s manufacturing establishment, where he was employed, during a fire which consumed the building, defendant having negligently omitted to provide a proper fire escape. In fact there was no fire escape as prescribed by statute; but a window in the room where plaintiff was employed opened on to the flat- roof of defendant’s adjoining building, and from this roof through a scuttle there was, as defendant claimed, a proper and safe access to the street for his employes, and a proper escape from fire.

It is not seriously denied that defendant was carrying on a manufacturing establishment within the meaning of chap. 560, Laws of 1889, amending chap. 409 of the Laws of 1886, as amended by chap. 462, Laws of 1887, or that the provisions of that statute applies to him, although a lessee and not the owner of the building in question.

Appellant having neglected to provide a fire escape as prescribed by the aforesaid act, if plaintiff received the injury complained of in consequence of such neglect he was entitled to recover, unless defendant provided some safe way of escape for his operatives, in case of fire, in place of the statutory fire escape.

The case of Pauley, as Adm’r, v. Steam Guage & Lantern Co., 131 N. Y., 90 ; 42 St. Rep., 636 , holds that the act, above referred to, imposed a duty on the owners or occupants of the prescribed class of factories, and for an omission to perform which operatives injured because thereof may recover damages. In the case cited, the owners of the factory had provided a proper, fire escape under the statute to the floor on which plaintiff’s intestate was at work, but instead of - providing statutory stairs or a ladder on the inside, from the upper story of the building to the roof, as provided by the act, they conducted the fire escape on the outside up to the roof by stairs, thus affording, as the court held, as safe and convenient an access to the roof as a ladder or stairs on the inside. The outside stairs to the roof, although not a literal compliance with the statute, was held by the court of appeals sufficient. The effect of this decision, therefore, is to determine that only a substantial compliance with the statute is necessary. Hence, in the case before us, although defendant failed to place a fire escape on the outside of the building, according to the terms of the statute, if he in fact provided for the operatives working in the room on the fourth floor, where plaintiff was employed, an equally safe and convenient escape, in case of fire, over the roof of the adjoining building, he is not negligent and not liable in this action.

This view was taken by the trial judge, and, on examining his charge carefully, I am unable to discover any error in his presen

The judge fairly submitted these questions to the jury. He said: “ If the defendant did, through that window in the south end of the building, provide a suitable and safe fire escape, if he rendered reasonably safe exit to the people engaged in that room, in his employment, to escape through that window and the scuttle on the roof, to the floor below, then he was performing the full measure of his statutory duty.” And then again he was requested to charge by counsel for defendant, and did charge, “ That if the jury believe the escape through the window onto the adjoining roof of the Parsons building, and thus through the scuttle holes, was easily accessible, unobstructed and safe for that purpose to the employes on the fourth floor, then that is a sufficient compliance with the statute.”

It will thus be seen that the court submitted the question to the jury in the language and as requested by counsel for defendant. I am unable to see any error in the submission of these questions of fact to the jury.

There was some evidence that at the time of the fire the only door leading to the room on the fourth floor where plaintiff was employed was locked, and that plaintiff and others were unable to escape through it. There was a conflict of evidence in this regard which was properly submitted to the jury. The court remarked that it was the “ statutory ” duty of the defendant to keep the door unlocked at all times during business hours. Perhaps the use of the word “ statutory ” was not correct But clearly it was defendant’s duty while his employes were at work in the room on the fourth story to keep the door unlocked, and I fail to see how the use of the word “ statutory ” in the charge could have injured defendant. However, the judge afterwards fully explained the matter to the jury, that to make defendant liable in consequence of the door being locked, if they should determine it was locked, they must find that if unlocked at the time of the fire, plaintiff could have escaped through that way. Hence, no error was committed to the injury of the defendant

It is urged by the appellant that plaintiff, having a mode of escape provided for him onto the roof of the adjoining building, easy to be seen and over which almost all the operatives employed in the room at the time of the fire escaped, was guilty of contributory negligence in omitting to use that way of escape, and, hence, cannot recover. I do not regard this as one of those exceptional cases where the question as to plaintiff’s contributoiy negligence could be taken from the jury and passed upon by the court as a

It is claimed that plaintiff, knowing that no fire escapes were provided, voluntarily and with knowledge of that fact continued at work, and hence assumed the risk of an accident by fire as incident to the employment This position does.not appear to have been taken upon the trial and hence it is questionable whether it should be considered on this appeal.

The burden was on the appellant on the trial to show that the risk of working in the room not provided with fire escapes was voluntarily assumed by plaintiff as incident to his employment, Mayes v. Chicago R. I. & Pacific R. R. Co., 63 Ia., 566 .

My attention has not been called to any evidence showing certainly that plaintiff knew there was no fire escape, or that his attention was ever called to that subject. The risks that an employe assumes as incident to his employment are such as he knows of or as are apparént. Plaintiff’s employment was within the defendant’s room, on the fourth story. The fire escape should have been on the outside of the building. Plaintiff’s employment did not call him on the outside, and while it is not unlikely that he might have examined to see whether fire escapes were provided outside, it is not certain that he did so. He was not bound to so examine, and could properly rely upon the defendant performing his statutory duty. Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y., 315 .

Therefore, although plaintiff had been employed by defendant for a year, it was not certain that his attention had been called to the absence of fire escapes, and hence whether as incident to his employment he assumed the risk of injury from a fire, caused by such absence, was a question of fact. The case would have been different had an accident occurred on account of some danger in plaintiff’s employment on a machine used by him in the business, or some apparent danger in the room where plaintiff worked incident to his employment There is, I think, a distinction between cases referred toby appellant and this case. Gibson v. Erie Railway Co., 63 N. Y., 449 , was an action to recover damages for the death of a brakeman, who, riding on the top of a car, was struck and killed by the projecting roof of defendant’s depot building. There, the employment of the deceased was on the top of freight cars, drawn from day to day by the projection in question. The deceased brakeman’s attention was necessarily called to the projection on the building as a risk incident to the busi

_ In this case, however, plaintiff was engaged in the business of picking and assorting rags in the defendant’s building on the fourth floor. His business was on the inside, and he had no connection with the fire escape. He was not called upon to examine the outside of the walls. It is not proved that his attention was ever called prior to the fire to the question of the fire escape.

I will not attempt to discuss the many authorities that might be considered on the subject of the risk assumed by an employe as incidental to his business. It has been held that the risk so assumed does not include risks caused by the negligence of his master in failing to furnish him a safe place to work in. I think the principle stated in McGovern v. C. V. R. R. Co., 123 N. Y., 280 ; 33 St. Rep., 416 , applies to this case. It is there held that “Those dangers, however, which are known and can be mitigated or avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and precaution on the part of the master are not incident to the business, and it is the duty of the master to protect his servants therefrom in all cases in which it may be done by reasonable care. When, therefore, the master directs the performance of work by his servant at a place which may become dangerous, and such danger may be foreseen and guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care, it is the master’s duty to exercise such care and adopt such precautions as will protect the servant.” And see Pantzar v. Tilly Foster Iron Mining Co., 99 N. Y., 376 ; Buckley v. Port Henry Iron Ore Co., 17 St. Rep., 436 ; Benzing v. Steinway & Sons, 101 N. Y., 551 , 552; Freeman v. Glens Falls Paper Mill Co., 61 Hun, 132 ; 39 St. Rep., 621 ; Cullen v. Norton, 52 Hun, 12 ; 22 St. Rep., 221 .

I think the position of appellant, that the repeal by chapter 398, Laws of 1890, of the statute requiring fire escapes, prevents plaintiff from maintaining the action, is not sound. It is true that when a statute gives a penalty, or expressly creates a cause of action, a repeal of such statute may extinguish any right of action existing thereunder. But § 10 of the act requiring fire escapes created no right of action and prescribed no penalty to be recovered in an action. It made it the duty of the proprietor of a manufacturing establishment to maintain fire escapes, and a failure to perform this statutory duty has been held by courts to be a negligent act, and that an employe injured by such negligent act may maintain an action for damages. The repeal of the statute does not extinguish plaintiff’s right of action for an injury caused by defendant’s negligent omission to provide fire escapes as prescribed by the statute. The authorities cited by defendant are where a penalty is given or a cause of action expressly created by statute, in which cases it is held that a repeal of the statute extinguishes a

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Mayham, P. J., concurs; Herrick, J., not acting.