Hart v. Naumburg

• Decision Date: 21 October 1890
• Citation: 25 N.E. 385,123 N.Y. 641
• Parties: HART v. NAUMBURG et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

123 N.Y. 641

25 N.E. 385

HART

v.NAUMBURG et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 21, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

Joseph H. Choate, for appellants.

Chas. J. Patterson, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The defendants are wholesale clothing merchants in the city of New York, and in the large building which they occupied there were three elevators, one for passengers, one for both passengers and freight, and the other, the one in question, an Otis platform sidewalk freight elevator. On the 23d of March, 1886, the plaintiff, then, and for 19 years previous, a porter in the defendants' employ, was seriously injured while riding on the platform of this elevator, and this injury he claims was chargeable to the defendants' negligence. He brought this action to recover for the injuries thus sustained, and on the trial the jury returned a verdict in his favor, and the judgment entered thereon has been affirmed by the general term. The elevator in question had been in operation and use in the building since 1880, and this was the first accident that had occurred upon it. During this period of six years, the plaintiff had been accustomed to ride upon it whenever he chose. It ran from the sub-basement to the level of the sidewalk on Mercer street, and was used for receiving and delivering goods. The evidence shows that at least 250 of precisely the same pattern and kind of elevators were in use in the city of New York. It was constantly looked after by one of the defendants, who rode upon it frequently for the purpose of seeing that everything connected with it was in good order; and every three months it was inspected, by direction of the defendants, by one of the inspectors of the manufacturer employed for that purpose. It had been thoroughly inspected less than three months before the accident, and was then found to be in perfect condition. There is no proof in the record that any defect in the elevator, or its equipments, was ever brought to the notice of the defendants prior to the accident, or that they were aware that it was in any respect out of order. At the time the accident occurred, the plaintiff was riding upon the elevator from the subbasement to the sidewalk, and when the platform had nearly reached the street level it gave way, or tipped to one side, letting the plaintiff fall to the bottom of the well-hole, breaking the bones of his thigh and arm, and otherwise severely injuring him. The elevator was suspended on two sides with chains, which wound around two drums on a shaft at the bottom of the well-hole. A check-chain at the side of the...