
    Patrick Cummings, Appellant, v. Christopher J. Kenny and Richard Heningham, Respondents.
    Negligence— the unexplained break of a ladder used by a hodcarrier — it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the employer.
    
    The unexplained breaking of one of the rounds of a ladder, furnished to a hod-carrier by Ms employer, -while the hodcarrier is using the ladder in the course of Ms work, 'establishes under the provisions of section 18 of the Labor Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 415) a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the employer.
    
      Appeal by the plaintiff, Patrick Cummings, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 30th day of April, 1903, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the Kings County Trial Term.
    
      Benjamin F. Norris and James C. Cropsey, for the appellant.
    
      John B. Doyle and Frank V. Johnson, for the respondents.
   Woodward, J.:

The evidence was sufficient that a jury might have found that the plaintiff, a hodcarrier, was employed by the defendants in the construction of a building, and that he was placed at work carrying bricks in a hod from one floor to another above it, using a ladder for this purpose; that the defendants supplied this ladder, and that after the plaintiff had been at work a few hours one of the rounds of this ladder .broke under him, resulting in a partial fall, and injuries of which he here complains. This, under the provisions of section 18 of the Labor Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 415), makes & prima farde case of negligence on the part of the defendants, and we think the granting of a motion to dismiss was error. The duty of the master, under the provisions of the Labor Law, is to use reasonable care to furnish safe appliances; it is a duty which the master cannot delegate, and when a ladder, scaffold or other appliance mentioned in the statute breaks while in use for the purposes for which it was designed, it raises a presumption of negligence which, unexplained, justifies a recovery. (Stewart v. Ferguson, 52 App. Div. 317, 318, and authorities there cited; affd., 164 N. Y. 553.)

The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.  