26 N.Y.S. 10 | New York Court of Common Pleas | 1893
In an action by a servant against a master for an injury in the course of the employment, the principle of liability is the personal fault of the master. Cahill v. Hilton, 106 N. Y. 512, 13 N. E. 339. The master is not an insurer of the sufficiency and safety of the implements and facilities furnished for the work, but is responsible only for negligence; i. e. omission of reasonable care in securing such sufficiency and safety. Painton v. Railway Co., 83 N. Y. 7. When injury occurs to an employe from a defect in the appliances of the work; knowledge of the defect must be brought home to the employer, or proof given that he omitted the exercise of proper care to discover it. Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 470. Neglect of the exercise of such care must be shown by direct evidence, or by proof of facts from which the inference of negligence can be legitimately drawn by the jury. The mere fact that an accident occurred which caused the injury, is not generally of itself sufficient to authorize an inference of negligence. Dobbins v. Brown, 119 N. Y. 188, 23 N. E. 537. A scintilla of evidence is sufficient proof of negligence, but the evidence must be such as reasonably to satisfy the mind of the jury. Dwight v. Insurance Co., 103 N. Y. 341, 359, 8 N. E. 654. While in the service of the defendant, the plaintiff sustained an injury from a defect in a ladder provided for his use. In a suit for damages his complaint was dismissed, and we are to determine whether his evidence was adequate to the support of the action. It is not pretended that the defendant had notice of the defect, but the contention is that by reasonable care he might have known it. The defect was not in the ladder itself, but in its insecure fastening, so that under plaintiff’s weight it slipped out of place, and gave