Queeney v. Willi

• Decision Date: 21 January 1919
• Parties: QUEENEY v. WILLI (two cases).
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

225 N.Y. 374

122 N.E. 198

QUEENEY

v.WILLI (two cases).

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 21, 1919.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Actions by Mary Queeney to recover damages for personal injuries, and by John Queeney to recover for loss of wife's services as result of such injuries, against George Willi, Jr. From judgments of the Appellate Division (171 App. Div. 588,157 N. Y. Supp. 642), reversing judgments for plaintiffs and dismissing their complaints, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Chase, J., dissenting.Herbert C. Smyth, of New York City, for appellants.

Stephen P. Anderton, of New York City, for respondent.

POUND, J.

The actions are by tenants against the landlord. They allege that the defendant negligently failed to protect water pipes under his control from frost.

Plaintiffs occupied a top floor apartment in a building owned by defendant. Water was supplied from a tank on the roof. The evidence for the plaintiffs is to the effect that from December, 1913, to February, 1914, Queeney, the husband, had noticed that the walls and ceiling of the bedroom were damp. He could get water out of the wall paper by rubbing his hand on it. Notice of this condition was given to the landlord and to the janitor, his agent, some time in January, 1914. At about 10 o'clock on the night of February 13, 1914, by reason of the freezing of the water in a vertical pipe between the ceiling of plaintiffs' apartment and the roof of the building, the pipe burst, and a large quantity of water fell through the ceiling of the bedroom bringing the plaster down with it. Mrs. Queeney, who was preparing for bed, was struck by the water and plaster. She prematurely gave birth to a child on the same night; her left breast, where she struck the bed, wasted away; she suffered from neurasthenia; caught cold; and developed acute bronchitis and tuberculosis. It is said that the circumstances were a competent and producing cause for the conditions.

The pipe which burst was not covered properly to protect it from freezing as pipes in such a position customarily are covered. An expert witness testified that an uncovered pipe, such as this one was, will ‘sweat’ or condense moisture on its outside in cold weather. If it is in a vertical position, the moisture will drip into the walls and ceiling, thus giving notice of its condition.

Defendant did not build the house. He had purchased it three years before the accident and had no actual notice of the potential danger from freezing and bursting of exposed pipes. Plaintiffs recovered verdicts in the trial court on the theory that the dampness of the bedroom was constructive notice of a leak or some other defective condition of the premises. The learned Appellate Division (171 App. Div. 588,157 N. Y. Supp. 642) held that the inference of defect from dampness was too remote and dismissed the complaints.

[1] The distinction between insufficient evidence and unsatisfactory evidence must be kept in mind. It has often been said that ‘insufficient evidence is, in the eye of the law, no evidence,’ but that merely means insufficient in law, not insufficient to the mind of one trier of fact with whom others may with reason differ. If any legitimate conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, it should not be wholly rejected by the court. The jury should pass upon it, and, if the trial judge or the Appellate Division is not satisfied with the soundness of the conclusions reached, the verdict should be set aside and a new trial ordered. Getty v. Williams Silver Co., 221 N. Y. 34, 39,116 N. E. 381.

The chain of reasoning most favorable to plaintiffs might legitimately consist of these links: Walls are not so...