DeHaen v. Rockwood Sprinkler Co. of Massachusetts
1932 N.Y. LEXIS 1191, 258 N.Y. 350, 179 N.E. 764 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The violation of a statute requiring a safety measure can establish liability for an injury, even if the injury is not the primary hazard the statute was designed to prevent, so long as the injury was caused by a hazard within the class of hazards the statute was intended to correct.
Facts:
- Turner Construction Company was the general contractor for a building under construction.
- The building contained an open hoistway that was not fenced or enclosed as required by a state labor law.
- Servants of LeBeau, a subcontractor, placed a radiator, which was thirty-eight inches high, approximately ten to twelve inches from the edge of the unprotected hoistway.
- Servants of another subcontractor, Rockwood Sprinkler Company, negligently struck the radiator.
- The impact caused the radiator to fall down the hoistway shaft.
- A man working below was struck by the falling radiator and killed.
Procedural Posture:
- The estate of the deceased man sued Turner Construction Company, LeBeau, and Rockwood Sprinkler Company in a New York trial court to recover damages for his death.
- The trial court held all three defendants liable.
- The defendants appealed to an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a general contractor's violation of a statute requiring a barrier around a hoistway create liability for the death of a person struck by an object that fell down the hoistway, when the statute's primary purpose is to prevent people from falling into it?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, Ch. J.
Yes. A general contractor's violation of a statute requiring a barrier around a hoistway creates liability for a death caused by a falling object because the hazard of falling objects is within the class of hazards the statute was intended to correct. The court reasoned that while the primary purpose of the statute was to protect workers from falling into the shaft, its requirements suggested a broader protective purpose. The statute's mandate for a solid fence on two sides and a barrier set back at least two feet from the edge serves not only to prevent falls but also to act as a warning, discouraging workers from placing materials in a dangerous position near the edge. The court concluded that the harm that occurred, while perhaps not the primary legislative concern, was within the 'zone of apprehension' and thus the statutory safeguard was intended to protect against it. Therefore, the violation of the statute was a basis for liability.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the doctrine of negligence per se by expanding the scope of a statute's protective purpose. The court moves beyond a narrow, literal interpretation of legislative intent, which would limit liability only to the primary hazard a statute addresses. By introducing the 'zone of apprehension' and 'class of hazards' concepts, the decision allows for a more flexible analysis, holding violators liable for foreseeable, albeit secondary, risks. This precedent encourages courts to look at the practical effects and broader safety implications of statutory requirements, influencing how statutory liability is determined in future negligence cases involving non-obvious harms.
