Heil v. Armor Elevator Company, 43 N.Y.2d 937 (1978)
Violations of pertinent provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and of the Industrial Code of the State of New York can be considered by the jury as some evidence of a defendant’s negligence when those provisions relate to the site of the plaintiff’s injury.
Summary
Adam Heil, an employee of Armor Elevator Company, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder that provided sole access to the upper roof of the defendant’s brewery. From the roof, a stairway led to the elevator motor room. Heil sued, alleging negligence. The trial court allowed the jury to consider violations of the New York City Administrative Code and the New York State Industrial Code as evidence of the defendant’s negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly recognized the questions of fact and properly placed them before the jury; the record sufficiently linked the code violations to the circumstances of Heil’s injury.
Facts
Adam Heil, an employee of Armor Elevator Company, fell from a vertical ladder at the defendant’s Brooklyn brewery. The ladder served as the only way to access the upper roof of the brewery. A stairway connected the roof to the elevator motor room, which was two levels above. Access to the motor room required using both the ladder and the stairway. Heil claimed the ladder was improperly positioned, leading to his fall and subsequent injuries.
Procedural History
The trial court heard the case and allowed the jury to consider violations of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and the Industrial Code of the State of New York as evidence of the defendant’s negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in charging the jury that violations of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and the Industrial Code of the State of New York could be considered as some evidence of the defendant’s negligence.
Holding
Yes, because the record revealed, through testimony and photographs, that the sole mode of access to the elevator motor room was the ladder and stairway and the court correctly placed these questions before the jury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found no errors warranting reversal. The court emphasized that the trial court correctly recognized the factual questions, including those related to Section 200 of the Labor Law, and properly presented them to the jury. Critically, the court noted that the testimony and photographs depicting the ladder and stairway as the sole access to the elevator motor room substantiated the trial court’s decision to allow the jury to consider the code violations as evidence of negligence. The court cited Major v. Waverly & Ogden, 7 N.Y.2d 332, 336, supporting the proposition that violations of relevant codes can be considered as evidence of negligence. The court stated, “by testimony describing and photographs depicting the sole mode of access to the elevator motor room, the record reveals that the court was correct, both factually and legally, in charging that violations of pertinent provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and of the Industrial Code of the State of New York could be considered by the jury as some evidence of defendant’s negligence”.