Cummings v. Kenny
This text of 97 A.D. 114 (Cummings v. Kenny) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The evidence was sufficient that a jury might have found that the plaintiff, a hodcarrier, was employed by the defendants in the construction of a building, and that he was placed at work carrying bricks in a hod from one floor to another above it, using a ladder for this purpose; that the defendants supplied this ladder, and that after the plaintiff had been at work a few hours one of the rounds of this ladder .broke under him, resulting in a partial fall, and injuries of which he here complains. This, under the provisions of section 18 of the Labor Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 415), makes & prima farde case of negligence on the part of the defendants, and we think the granting of a motion to dismiss was error. The duty of the master, under the provisions of the Labor Law, is to use reasonable care to furnish safe appliances; it is a duty which the master cannot delegate, and when a ladder, scaffold or other appliance mentioned in the statute breaks while in use for the purposes for which it was designed, it raises a presumption of negligence which, unexplained, justifies a recovery. (Stewart v. Ferguson, 52 App. Div. 317, 318, and authorities there cited; affd., 164 N. Y. 553.)
The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
All concurred.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
97 A.D. 114, 89 N.Y.S. 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-kenny-nyappdiv-1904.