Majority
Headnote
Mre escapes in a manufactory — duty of the owner to erect them, without notice from the commissioner.Tbe appellant, for five years before tbe accident, bad owned and collected rent from tbe defective buildings. If, under those circumstances, be can avoid responsibility by alleging be bad no personal knowledge that tbe fire-escapes were not erected as required by law, tbe statute would be a snare and not a safeguard.
The appellant argues that, as tbe statute does not in express terms declare that fire-escapes shall be erected by tbe owner, the duty cannot be placed upon him by a judicial construction of tbe law.
Tbe law enacts that any building occupied, or built to be occupied,
The statute is intended to protect human life; its intentions are easily discovered, and no reason is perceived why the court should strain after so strict a construction of its language as to deprive it of all useful operation.
The appellant argues that, had plaintiff not given way to fright, and exercised a sound discretion as to the method of escape adopted, she might have found a safe egress by another window.
All those considerations were properly submitted to the jury. Their finding was adverse to defendant, and was sustained by the testimony.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.