227 N.Y. 345 (1919)
An employer has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect employees from foreseeable dangers when assigning them to work in hazardous environments, even if the precise manner of the accident is not foreseen.
Summary
John Nicholson, a carpenter, was killed while repairing elevator doors in a hotel when an adjacent elevator struck him. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the employer, The Greeley Square Hotel Co., was negligent for failing to provide a safe working environment. The court found that the employer knew of the hazardous conditions and the proximity of the working carpenter to a rapidly moving elevator, and therefore had a duty to implement safety measures. The court also held that the defendant failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Facts
John Nicholson, a carpenter employed by The Greeley Square Hotel Co., was tasked with repairing elevator doors in the Hotel McAlpin. The elevator shafts were closely situated, separated only by a narrow I-beam. While Nicholson was working in one shaft, an elevator in the adjacent shaft, moving at high speed and without warning, struck and killed him. The elevator passed the location where Nicholson was working approximately 48 times per hour.
Procedural History
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff (Nicholson’s estate). The Appellate Division reversed, finding Nicholson contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s verdict.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant hotel company was negligent in failing to provide a reasonably safe working environment for its employee, John Nicholson.
2. Whether the deceased, John Nicholson, was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
Holding
1. Yes, because the employer knew or should have known that the work would bring Nicholson into dangerous proximity to the adjacent elevator, and failed to implement adequate safeguards.
2. No, because the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving that Nicholson’s own negligence caused his death. The court reasoned that several plausible scenarios could have led to the accident without negligence on Nicholson’s part.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that the hotel company was negligent because it failed to exercise reasonable care in protecting its employee from a known danger. The court emphasized the employer’s knowledge of the hazardous conditions, stating, “The defendant knew that Nicholson was working in one of the shafts. It knew, or, as a jury might find, ought to have known, that his work would bring him in dangerous proximity to the elevator in the adjoining shaft.” The court suggested potential safeguards, such as temporarily stopping the adjacent elevator or providing a warning signal, which the hotel failed to implement.
Regarding contributory negligence, the court highlighted the shift in the burden of proof under Section 841-b of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the defendant to prove that Nicholson’s negligence caused the accident. The court found that the defendant failed to meet this burden, as there were several plausible explanations for the accident that did not involve negligence on Nicholson’s part. The court noted, “He may have slipped or stumbled or lost bis balance… He may have relaxed his vigilance a brief second, his mind absorbed in an engrossing task.”
The court also dismissed the defense of assumption of risk, as it was not raised at trial. The court stated, “The defense of assumption of risk does not help the defendant, for it was not urged upon the trial. Had it been urged, the plaintiff might have been able to overcome it.”