98 N.Y.S. 393 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1906
The plaintiff testified that he went up alone from the ground floor to the third floor by the. elevator with a hand truck - to ,get some boxes of candy; that he stopped the elevator and wheeled his-truck off some considerable distance to the middle of the floor and loaded it; that he then "pulled it over to within four or five-feet from the elevator; noticed that-the elevator platform was about an inch above the room floor, and went upon it and let it down level with the floor; that it stopped there, and he immediately stepped off and took hold of his truck and pulled it to the "elevator to go upon it, but instead went down the open shaft, the elevator having meanwhile gone up; that he did not' go backwards in "pulling the truck, but forwards to the elevator. The accident happened in day. light, and the elevator could be seen without difficulty. The plaintiff’s brother, a fellow-workman, corroborated him.
For the plaintiff to walk into the open shaft in this way Was. plain negligence. The case of Dieboldt v. United States Baking Co. (72 Hun, 403) seems to be applicable.
The plaintiff’s brother and -another fellow-workman testified- that ■the elevator would sometimes when standing start and go up to the top or' down to -fhe bottom of its own accord, bécausé óf a defect. Even so, the plaintiff walked right into the open shaft,'according to his own story..
The judgment should be reversed on the law and the facts.
Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Rich, JJ., concurred.
Judgment reversed and new trial 'granted, costs to, abide the event.