Hyperlawhypertext legal database Guliano v. Whitenack 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 738

← Cases

Guliano v. Whitenack

59 N.Y. St. Rep. 738 Court N.Y.C.P. Decision date 1894-06-04 English

Decision Majority — Pryor, J. · Dissent — Bookstaver, J.,

Contents

Majority

p. 738
Antonio Guliano, Resp’t, v. John H. Whitenack, App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed June 4, 1894.)

Headnote

Negligence—Question eor jury.
In an action for negligence, if there is any doubt as to the facts established by the evidence, or as to the inferences from the facts, the case must go to the jury.
Appeal from judgment on verdict and order denying new trial. The opinion gives the case.
J. Hampdon Dougherty, for app’lt; Joseph Wamsley, for resp’t.

In connection with a building he was erecting, the defendant constructed an oven, intp which, when it was about completed, he directed the plaintiff to enter for the purpose of cleaning out the sand. It collapsed and crushed the plaintiff; and for the injury so sustained he prosecutes the action. With seeming confidence the defendant imputes error to the court in refusing to dismiss the complaint. But, upon what ground ? Surely not because the proof of his negligence was insufficient to carry the case to the jury. Not such was counsel’s opinion on the development of the evidence at the trial. For, he then said: “It would be a question for the jury whether it was a negligent construction or not, connecting the oven with the post that caused this oscillation.” And, indeed, defendant’s own testimony left no alternative but to submit the issue to the jury. He disclosed the agency by which the oven collapsed, saying, “ The cause of the break, to the best of my knowledge, was the post of the elevated railroad standing against the corner of the oven and shaking it; all the stones shook on to it.” And again, “Its giving way I could only attribute to two things; one was the cement and plaster was no good, and the other was that hammering of the post.” The defendant had been working there before the oven was built; and he confessed that “During that time I felt the vibration; the vibration of the elevated railroad; but did not think there was enough to do any harm. I subsequently found that it did.” And yet with this knowledge of the vibration of the pillar, he so placed the oven that it was “ hammered ’’ to pieces. Obvious and easy was the escape from

Dissent

p. 739
the peril of which plaintiff was the victim. When the oven was rebuilt “it was rebuilt so that it did not touch the post, with a short interval between." Thus, that the caving-in of the oven was the effect of its ill construction, the defendant concedes. And that its bad construction was the result of negligence, is equally apparent on his testimony. For, what man of ordinary prudence, aware of the vibration of the pillar under the incessant movement of the trains, would have so placed the oven as to subject it to the impact of the disintegrating agency? That the consequence was within the range of reasonable apprehension, and might have been averted by the slightest effort, it is idle to gainsay.

Beyond, all question the evidence required the submission of the issue upon defendant’s negligency, to the jury, and is sufficient to sustain their verdict. “ If there is any doubt, however slight, either as to what facts of negligence are established by the evidence, or as to the conclusion in respect to the fact of negligence that may be drawn legitimately from the circumstances proved by the average of men of common sense, ordinary experience, and fair intentions, the case should not be taken from the jury.” Bills v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 5 , 10. Nor, may we, upon our estimate of the probative force of the evidence, so encroach on the function of the jury as to nullify a verdict not manifestly destitute of support Nelson v. E. & A. R. R. Co., 7 Misc. 656 ; 58 St. Rep. 384 . Equally untenable is the position that no proof was given of plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence. He was a common laborer, not a mason or a brick-layer, and he had done no work on the oven. Thus ignorant of its insecurity, he was ordered into it by the defendant; and obedience to the command of his master absolved him from the imputation of negligence, Kranz v. L. 1. R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 1 , 5; 38 St. Rep 46 ; Doyle v. Baird, 15 Daly, 287 , 289; 25 St. Rep. 749 ; Stuber v. McEntee, 58 St. Rep. 455 , 457; Connolly v. Poillon, 41 Barb. 366 . The record discloses no error, and the judgment should stand.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Bischoff, J., concurs.

(dissenting.)—This action was brought for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employment. The plaintiff, in accordance with defendant’s directions, entered an oven or vault built beneath the sidewalk in order to remove the sand which had served as a support and also as a pattern for the arched roof of the vault while in process of construction. While he was so engaged the structure collapsed and he suffered the injuries complained of. The only witnesses called were the physicians who treated him at the hospital and who testified to the nature and severity of his injuries and the length of time he was in the hospital, and the defendant who testified chiefly to the method of constructing the oven and to its material, shape and dimensions. When plaintiff rested, and also when all the evidence was in, the defendant moved that the complaint be dismissed upon the ground that no case had been made out against him, which was denied, and he

p. 740
thereupon duly excepted to the refusal. After the jury rendered this verdict he in due time also moved for a new trial on the minutes. I do not think the judgment can be sustained, for the reason that there was no affirmative evidence given to show the plaintiffs freedom from contributory negligence nor do the circumstances of the accident warrant such an inference. The record is barren of any evidence to show how the plaintiff proceeded to remove the sand. It may be that he used an iron bar or some other implement to loosen the sand (which was packed hard to serve as a support and shape for the superincumbent masonry) and was so careless that he disturbed the foundations or displaced some of the híleles of the arch, a structure well known to be little calculated to resist pressure or impacts from below. Furthermore, I think there was error in instructing the jury. The defendant’s attorney said, in the course of the charge, “I suppose your honor will also charge them that the mere fact that this oven fell in would not warrant the jury in assuming that there was any fault on the part of the defendant in its construction, or any negligence upon his part.”

“I shall charge the jury with respect to' that, that the falling of the oven after it was completed calls upon the defendant for an explanation as to the way it was constructed.” This is equivalent to saying that the fact that the oven fell threw the burden of disproving negligence m its construction upon the defendant. It is true that there are numerous cases in which it has been held that the mere happening of an accident has raised a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant. Many of these are cases where one passing along the street has been in-j ured by the fall of objects from adjacent or overhanging structures, as in Muller v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 567 , by the fall of the building itself, or in Morsemann v. Manhattan R. Co., 16 Daly, 249 , by the fall of a crowbar from the elevated structure, or in Cahalin v. Cochran, 1 St. Rep. 583 , by the fall of a chisel from a building upon which work was being done. See also English cases cited in Muller v. St. John, supra, in which the same ruling was made in cases where a brick fell from a railway bridge over the highway, or a barrel from a shop window, or bags of sugar from a warehouse. All the above. decisions may be referable more or less to the principle of nuisance. Another class of cases in which this doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been applied is against common carriers, as in Wilkie v. Bolster, 3 E. D. Smith, 327, explosion of a lamp in an omnibus; see also cases cited in Thompson on Carriers of Passengers, pp. 211 and 212, but these again rproceed upon the ground -of the peculiar relation between passenger and carrier. Other cases, not falling within either of the above categories, may be found, but in all of them, so far as I have been able to discover, the facts of the. accident have been such as to exclude any reasonable inference that the plaintiffs own negligence could have contributed to the injury. To apply the rule in the present case would necessitate two presumptions against the defendant, that of his own negligence and the plaintiff’s care. The language in Dobbins v.

p. 741
Brown, 119 N. Y. 188 ; 28 St. Rep. 957 , seems applicable to this case ; “ neglect must be proved, either by direct evidence or the proof of facts from which the inference of negligence can be legitimately drawn by the jury. It cánnot be supported by conjecture or surmise, but must be made referable by proof to some specific cause or defect. It has been held that the mere fact that an accident occurred which caused an injury, is not generally, .of itself, sufficient to authorize an inference of negligence against a defendant.” * * * There were other ways in which the accident might have occurred, * * (meaning other than in accordance with the theory advanced by the plaintiff) which are not sufficiently negatived or contradicted by the evidence;” and in this connection it is significant when the case was so barren of evidence as to the cause of the accident that the plaintiff himself was not produced or sworn, he must have known all about the circumstances of the accident, or at least all about his connection with it, and could have removed all doubt as to his contributory negligence, if such were the fact, and under such circumstances the jury ought not to have been allowed to speculate as to its cause ; see Miller v. Railway Co., 5 Misc. 301 . But aside from the above considerations, the facts testified to boncerning the contact between one corner of the walls of the oven and a part of the elevated railroad were scarcely sufficient to make a question for the jury as to whether there was negligence in the construction. The defendant admitted that he was aware of the vibration of the post but denied that he was aware of any danger arising therefrom. He testified that it was the custom of builders to erect walls in contact with the pillars and foundations of the elevated railroads, and that never before had he known of any instance where walls had-been affected by such contact. From the fact of this and other similar subsequent occurrences it was conjectured that the constant jarring caused by passing trains may have prevented the proper setting of the cement and mortar in the arch so that the structure became unsafe. This is only conjecture, even now, but if an established fact, the conclusion would not be different upon the evidence given. It is easy to be wise after the event, but the question of negligence must be viewed from what was known at the time of the occurrence and-not from what is discovered after an accident has taken place. Hochman v. Moss Eng. Co., 53 St. Rep. 195 ; Loftus v. Union Ferry Co., 84 N. Y. 455 ; Lafflin v. Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 136 ; 8 St. Rep. 596 ; Kelly v. New York and Sea Beach R. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 44 ; 14 St. Rep. 36 .

The j udgment should therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Cases cited