The defendants are wholesale clothing merchants in the city of New York, and in the large building which they occupied there were three elevators, one for
The elevator in question had been in operation and use in the building since 1880, and this was the first accident that had occurred upon it. During this period of six years the plaintiff had been accustomed to ride upon it whenever he chose. It ran from the sub-basement to the level of the sidewalk on Mercer street, and was used for receiving and delivering goods. The evidence shows that at least 250 of precisely the same pattern and kind of elevators were in use in the city of Hew York. It was constantly looked after by one of the defendants, who rode upon it frequently for the purpose of seeing that everything connected with it was in good order, and every three months it was inspected, by direction of the defendants, by one of the inspectors of the manufacturer employed for that purpose. It had been thoroughly inspected less than three months before the accident and was then found to be in perfect condition. There is no proof in the record that any defect in the elevator, or its equipments, was ever brought to the notice of the defandants prior to the accident, or that they were aware that it was in any respect out of order.
At the time the accident occurred the plaintiff was riding upon the elevator from the sub-basement to the sidewalk, and when the platform had nearly reached the street level it gave way, or tipped to one side, letting the plaintiff fall to the bottom of the well-hole, breaking the bones of his thigh and arm, and otherwise severely injuring him.
There is no evidence in the case, however, to show that the defendants ever knew of this irregular winding of the chains. They furnished an elevator and equipments of the most approved kind and pattern for the purpose to which it was to be applied, and it was carefully looked after and inspected by the defendants, and also by the regular inspector of the manufacturer who furnished it. This was all that the law exacted from the master. To hold upon this state of facts that the defendants neglected any duty which they owed the plaintiff, would be to require of them extraordinary and unusual precautions. We think there was no evidence upon which the jury could properly find that the defendants were guilty of any negligence in furnishing the elevator or its equipment, or in providing for its proper inspection from time to time as was necessary, in order to guard against accidents. Stringham v. Hilton, 111 N. Y. 188 ; 19 N. Y. State Rep. 621 ; Dobbins v. Brown, 119 N. Y. 188 ; 28 N. Y. State Rep, 957.
The plaintiff frequently rode upon the elevator, and it
For these reasons the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.
All concur, except Ruger, Ch. J., not voting.