Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Carradine v. City of New York 13 N.Y.2d 291

← Cases

Carradine v. City of New York

13 N.Y.2d 291 Court N.Y. Decision date 1963-12-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 291
Charles Carradine, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Daniel Carradine, et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Thomas Santiago, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Santiago, Deceased, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Argued November 21, 1963;
decided December 30, 1963.
p. 293
Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Counsel (John A. Murray and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for appellant.
I. The complaints should have been dismissed for failure to establish any actionable negligence against the City of New York in the circumstances of this case. (Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp., 280 N. Y. 110 ; Flaherty v. Metro Stas., 202 App. Div. 583 , 235 N. Y. 605 ; Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N. Y. 154 ; Mendelowitz v. Neisner, 258 N. Y. 181 ; Olsen v. Fennia Realty Co., 246 N. Y. 641 ; Vaughan v. Transit Development Co., 222 N. Y. 79 ; Keenan v. Lawyers Mtge. Co., 254 App. Div. 348 , 280 N. Y. 525 ; Flynn v. City of New York, 13 A D 2d 237 , 10 N Y 2d 930 ; Camacho v. City of New York, 12 A D 2d 752 , 9 N Y 2d 613 ; Rafos v. Rolnick, 15 A D 2d 505 , 668; Magaddino v. Hilo Varnish Corp., 265 App. Div. 839 ; Castella v. Caristo Constr. Corp., 12 A D 2d 605 , 10 N Y 2d 945 ; Meyers v. 120th Ave. Bldg. Corp., 9 A D 2d 931 , 11 N Y 2d 871 ; Mendez v. Goroff, 25 Misc 2d 1013 , 13 A D 2d 705 ; Berdieff v. Argule, 26 Misc 2d 142 ; Beickert v. G. M. Labs., 242 N. Y. 168 ; Hall v. New York Tel. Co., 214 N. Y. 49 ; Mayer v. Temple Props., 307 N. Y. 559 ; Runkel v. City of New York, 282 App. Div. 173 ; Kingsland v. Erie County Agric. Soc., 298 N. Y. 409 ; Dunnier v. Doolittle, 14 A D 2d 179 .) II. The affirmance below is purportedly predicated on factors which, whether taken singly or in combination, are not enough to establish any liability against the City of New York. (Keenan v. Lawyers Mtge. Co., 254 App. Div. 348 , 280 N. Y. 525 ; Beauchamp v. New York City Housing Auth., 12 N Y 2d 400 ; Olsen v. Fennia Realty Co., 246 N. Y. 641 ; Flynn v. City of New York, 10 N Y 2d 930 ; Castella v. Caristo Constr. Corp., 10 N Y 2d 945 ; Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N. Y. 154 ; Kline v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 13 N Y 2d 773 ; Collentine v.
p. 294
City of New York, 279 N. Y. 119 .) III. In any event, the Trial Justice committed serious and prejudicial error in his charge so as to require a new trial. (Travell v. Bannerman, 174 N. Y. 47 ; McGettigan v. National Bank of Washington, 199 F, Supp. 133 ; Higgins v. Mason, 255 N. Y. 104 ; Krause v. Alper, 4 N Y 2d 518 ; Bernal v. Baptist Fresh Air Home Soc., 275 App. Div. 88 , 300 N. Y. 486 ; Mendez v. Goroff, 13 A D 2d 705 ; Hall v. International Ry. Co., 184 App. Div. 925 , 227 N, Y. 619 ; City of Auburn v. Roate, 246 App. Div. 461 ; Sheehan v. East 98th St. Corp., 242 N. Y. 262 .)
Herman J. McCarthy and Edward S. Marshall for Charles Carradine and another, respondents,
I. The substance which had been stored in the city’s paint room was explosive, highly inflammable and inherently dangerous. (Matter of Roge v. Valentine, 280 N. Y. 268 ; McQuage v. City of New York, 285 App. Div. 249 ; Allen v. Mendelson, 266 App. Div. 966 ; Satre v. City of New York, 265 App. Div. 263 ; Berdieff v. Argule, 26 Misc 2d 142 ; Flaherty v. Metro Stas,, 202 App. Div. 583 ; Maloney v. Hearst Hotels Corp., 274 N. Y. 106 ; Kingsland v. Erie County Agric. Soc., 298 N. Y. 409 ; Runkel v. City of New York, 282 App, Div. 173 ; Mayer v. Temple Props., 307 N. Y. 559 .) II. Because of the very nature of the explosive and highly inflammable substance stored on its property adjoining a playground area, the City of New York must be held liable for the injuries sustained by Charles Carradine and the damages flowing therefrom to Daniel Carradine. (Collentine v. City of New York, 279 N. Y. 119 ; Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567 , 260 N. Y. 604 ; Kingsland v. Erie County Agric. Soc., 298 N. Y. 409 ; Runkel v. City of New York, 282 App. Div. 173 ; Beauchamp v. New York City Housing Auth., 12 N Y 2d 400 .) III. The charge of the court was precisely proper and in line with the ruling case law.
Frederick J. Ludwig and Bernard Pizzitola for Thomas Santiago, respondent.
I. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the verdict finding defendant City of New York negligent with respect to deceased Santiago. (Kingsland v. Erie County Agric. Soc., 298 N. Y. 409 ; Maloney v. Hearst Hotels Corp., 248 App. Div. 731 , 274 N. Y. 106 ; Mayer v. Temple Props., 307 N. Y. 559 ; Carlock v. Westchester Light. Co., 268 N. Y. 345 ;
p. 295
Runkel v. City of New York, 282 App. Div. 173 ; Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567 , 260 N. Y. 604 ; Sarapin v. S. & S. Corrugated Paper Mach. Co., 209 App. Div. 377 ; Travell v. Bannerman, 71 App. Div. 439 , 174 N. Y. 47 ; Collentine v. City of New York, 279 N. Y. 119 ; Le Roux v. State of New York, 307 N. Y. 397 .) II. The standard of care for storing inflammable substances was violated. (Daggett v. Keshner, 6 A D 2d 503 , 7 N Y 2d 981 .) III. The dangerous condition existed on publicly owned premises accessible to the public. (Dorsey v. Chautauqua Inst., 203 App. Div. 251 ; Wittleder v. Citizens’ Elec. Illuminating Co., 47 App. Div. 410 ; Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 282 N. Y. 442 ; Connell v. Berland, 223 App. Div. 234 , 248 N. Y. 641 ; Ramsey v. National Contr. Co., 49 App. Div. 11 .) IV. The presence of children was known by defendant and injury was foreseeable. (Barr v. Green, 210 N. Y. 252 .) V. The inherently dangerous condition was a substantial factor in producing the injury and death. VT. No error prejudicial to appellant occurred in the charge of the Trial Justice.

We agree with the Appellate Division that the proper standard of care owed to trespassers by a property owner, in refraining from willful, wanton or intentional acts or their equivalents, is to be determined from the pertinent facts and relevant circumstances of each case. We feel, however, that a new trial should be ordered in this case, since the trial court erroneously charged the jury, with exception taken, that the inflammable liquid involved was inherently dangerous as a matter of law. (See, e.g., Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp., 280 N. Y. 110 ; Hall v. New York Tel. Co., 214 N. Y. 49 ; Camacho v. City of New York, 12 A D 2d 752 , mot. for lv. to app. den. 9 N Y 2d 613 .) In our opinion, it became a question of fact, in the absence of a statute or ordinance, for the jury to determine whether, under all of the circumstances of continued storage of accessible highly inflammable material, some of which had spilled on the floor, within a darkened vacated recess adjacent to a former public playground area, the defendant City of New York created or maintained an inherently hazardous situation, the consequences of which may well have been anticipated. (See, e.g., Mayer v. Temple Props., 307 N. Y. 559 , 565; Kingsland v, Erie County Agric. Soc.) 298 N, Y, 409 , 423-424; Parnell v.

p. 296
Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567 , affd. 260 N. Y. 604 ; cf. Lomoriello v. Tibbetts Contr. Corp., 18 A D 2d 911 , affd. 13 N Y 2d 736 .) Furthermore, although no exception was taken, consideration should also be given at the new trial to the question of whether the infants were actually trespassers (Collentine v. City of New York, 279 N. Y. 119 ; Soto v. City of New York, 9N Y2d 683).

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

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cases cited