Quick v. American Can Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1912 |
| Citation | 205 N.Y. 330,98 N.E. 480 |
| Parties | QUICK v. AMERICAN CAN CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by Helen Quick, as administratrix of the personal estate of William F. Quick, deceased, against the American Can Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (146 App. Div. 939,131 N. Y. Supp. 1140) affirming a judgment of the Trial Term entered on a verdict for plaintiff, she appeals. Reversed, and a new trial ordered.
In May, 1908, the plaintiff's intestate, while in the employ of the defendant, lost his life under the following circumstances, according to the uncontradicted evidence: In a building owned and occupied by the defendant, eight stories high, there were two Otis electric passenger elevators side by side in the same shaft, separated by I-beams laid at right angles to the respective entrance floors and on the same level therewith. Counterweights, 4 or 5 inches square and between 2 and 3 feet long, ran in uninclosed grooves extending from the I-beam on the first floor to the top of the shaft, and came down on either side of the beams subdividing the shaft. The grooves nearest the door were about 18 inches from the entrance side of the shaft, and it was about 30 inches from the door of the shaft to the I-beam. At the bottom of the shaft was a pit, 3 feet deep, below the first floor. Outside of the shaft on each floor was the usual indicator to show where the elevator was as it went up and down; the hand on the dial being moved by a cord inside the shaft. Adjustment of the dial could be made from outside the shaft, but of the cord from the inside only, and on the first floor only when the elevator was above that floor. The elevator was operated by a lever in the ordinary way; and the electric power could be shut off by a switch in the engine room, in the exclusive charge of the engineer. Quick, the decedent, had worked for the defendant as porter and assistant to Conger, the superintendent of the building, for more than a year, and had occasionally repaired and adjusted the cords of the indicator.
On the 28th of May, 1908, Quick informed Conger that the indicator of the south elevator was out of order on the ground floor, said he could fix it, and was told to do so, if he knew how. He asked Conger to go with him, and the two men went to the ground floor together; Quick in advance, carrying a very short ladder and some simple tools. At first, Quick, standing on the ladder, tried adjustment from the outside, and had the elevator run up and down, as he was working, so as to observe the effect of his work upon the dial. This effort did not succeed, and he then placed the ladder inside the shaft, resting the lower rung on the I-beam, about 2 1/2 feet from the door, with the top against the south guide. The guides in which the counterweights ran separated the ladder therefrom, and formed a substantial barrier thereto. After thus putting his ladder in a place where he could have used it in safety, he told the operator to go up, and then, without using the ladder, suddenly jumped into the pit for some undisclosed purpose, without notice to any one, and the counterweights came down and crushed him. When Quick jumped into the pit, Conger stood in a stooping position, with his back to the elevator, engaged in gathering up the tools to put them out of the way, and, hearing a queer noise, he jumped into the pit also, and found the decedent under the counterweights fatally injured. The ladder was not disturbed, but was in the position where it had been placed. Conger knew nothing about making such repairs, and he gave no directions to Quick, the operator, or the engineer.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Division; one of the Justices dissenting.Irving W. Teeple, of New York City, for appellant.
Thomas J. O'Neill, of New York City, for respondent.
VANN, J. (after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Marrin
-
People v. Murphy
...home. Significantly, the testimony of Mr. Millicovsky was not direct testimony of what he himself had observed (cf. Quick v. American Can Co., 205 N.Y. 330, 98 N.E. 480). Rather, the testimony was confined to what this witness had overheard defendant's parents state to his wife on the day a......
-
Kourtalis v. City of New York
...complaints for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Reed, 40 N.Y.2d 204, 207, 386 N.Y.S.2d 371, 352 N.E.2d 558; Quick v. American Can Co., 205 N.Y. 330, 334, 98 N.E. 480). Further, the questions were extremely prejudicial, considering that the prior alleged conduct involved abusive behavior......
- Peterson v. City of New York