Beck v. FMC Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1976 |
| Citation | 385 N.Y.S.2d 956,53 A.D.2d 118 |
| Parties | Richard W. BECK, Jr., et al. on behalf of themselves and others, Locals 774, 846 and 1173 of the International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Respondents, v. Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hurwitz, Siegel & Hurwitz, Buffalo (Louis Siegel, Buffalo, of counsel), for appellant FMC Corp.
Jaeckle, Fleischmann & Mugel, Buffalo (Lawrence Wagner, Buffalo, of counsel), for appellant Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Fudeman & Renaldo, Buffalo (Irving Fudeman, Buffalo, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MARSH, P.J., and SIMONS, MAHONEY, DILLON and WITMER, JJ.
On March 1, 1973 an explosion occurred in that portion of the plant of defendant, FMC Corporation (FMC), which houses its persulphate operation. Persulphate is an oxygen-bearing substance containing oxidizing and combustible agents. Defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk) owned and operated a power generating station known as the Huntley Station, located across River Road from the FMC plant, in the Town of Tonawanda, New York. The Huntley Station generates electrical power used by various industrial, commercial and individual consumers in the area.
The explosion at the FMC plant disrupted Niagara Mohawk's electrical power service to a Chevrolet plant located approximately one and a half miles away. The Chevrolet plant was unable to operate without electricity and its management neither employed nor paid its hourly employees on the date of the explosion.
Plaintiffs are more than 600 hourly employees of Chevrolet, together with their respective unions. They claim to represent approximately 8,500 similarly situated individuals and seek judgment in the amount of $340,000 for lost wages. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for failure to qualify as a class action. This appeal is taken from Special Term's denial of those motions. In light of our rationale on the other issues here presented, the dispute as to whether this is properly a class action need not be decided.
Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Niagara Mohawk sounding in breach of warranty and negligence. The claim based on breach of warranty must fail. There is no agreement between plaintiffs and Niagara Mohawk. While plaintiffs may derive a benefit from the performance of the agreement between their employer and Niagara Mohawk for electrical power service to the plant, they are neither promisees nor the one to whom performance is to be rendered. Plaintiffs are incidental beneficiaries of the contract and, as such, defendant owes them no duty to make reparation for the lost benefit (Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 164--166, 159 N.E. 896, 898; Salzman v. Holiday Inns, 48 A.D.2d 258, 261, 369 N.Y.S.2d 238, 239). Nor may plaintiffs rely upon cases dealing with strict products liability in tort. Their cause of action charging breach of warranty involves neither the marketing of a defective product nor injury resulting from the use of such a product (see Victorson v. Bock Laundry, 37 N.Y.2d 395, 373 N.Y.S.2d 39, 335 N.E.2d 275).
Plaintiffs' cause of action in negligence against Niagara Mohawk also must fail. Plaintiffs do not allege any affirmative act of negligence, but rely solely on the failure of Niagara Mohawk to maintain and perpetuate electrical service. Under such circumstances, we are bound to conclude that Niagara Mohawk owed no duty to plaintiffs for a negligent failure to furnish electricity to their employer. A contrary determination would unduly extend the liability of this defendant to an indefinite number of potential beneficiaries. 'The assumption of one relation will mean the involuntary assumption of a series of new relations, inescapably hooked together.' (Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., supra, 247 N.Y. p. 168, 159 N.E. p. 899.) 'The law does not spread its protection so far.' (Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 309, 48 S.Ct., 134, 135, 72 L.Ed. 290; Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., supra, 247 N.Y. pp. 165, 168, 159 N.E. p. 899; see Kraye v. Long Island Lighting Co., 42 A.D.2d 972, 348 N.Y.S.2d 16; Tuthill v. City of Rochester, 32 A.D.2d 873, 301 N.Y.S.2d 648, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 558, 313 N.Y.S.2d 127, 261 N.E.2d 267; Nicholson v. City of New York, 271 App.Div. 899, 67 N.Y.S.2d 156, affd. 297 N.Y. 548, 74 N.E.2d 477.)
The same rationale applies to plaintiffs' causes of action against defendant FMC based upon common law negligence (asserting also the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur), nuisance and statutory liability under the Labor Law (Labor Law, § 451, subd. 1).
Accepting all of the allegations of the complaint as true, as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.
... ... (See also, Wroblewski v. Otis Elevator Co., 9 A.D.2d 294, 296, 193 N.Y.S.2d 855, Rosenbaum v. Branster Realty Corp., 276 App.Div. 167, 93 N.Y.S.2d 209) ... But while the absence of privity does not foreclose recognition of a duty, it is still the ... The court denied recovery, concluding that the proposed enlargement of the zone of duty would unduly extend liability. Similarly, in Beck v. FMC Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 1027, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 369 N.E.2d 10, affg. 53 A.D.2d 118, 385 N.Y.S.2d 956), an explosion interrupted a utility's ... ...
-
Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.
... ... The case of Airco Alloys Div. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 A.D.2d 68, 79, 430 N.Y.S.2d 179, contains the following succinct summary of the basic principles governing the law of third-party beneficiaries: ... 6; p. 13, col. 1). Claims similar to that presented herein have consistently been dismissed (Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., supra; Beck v. FMC Corp., 53 A.D.2d 118, 385 N.Y.S.2d 956, affd., 42 N.Y.2d 1027, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 369 N.E.2d 10; Nicholson v. City of New York, 271 App.Div ... ...
-
Landon v. Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc.
... ... Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 8788, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511; see Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 409, 414, 729 N.Y.S.2d 425, 754 N.E.2d 184). The Court of Appeals has recognized that the line separating tort and contract claims may ... United Parcel Serv. of Am., 76 N.Y.2d 27, 556 N.Y.S.2d 21, 555 N.E.2d 273; Beck v. FMC Corp., 53 A.D.2d 118, 385 N.Y.S.2d 956, affd. 42 N.Y.2d 1027, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 369 N.E.2d 10). In short ... the specter of limitless ... ...
-
Suffolk County v. Long Island Lighting Co.
... ... Senn, Jr., Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp ... John S. Kinzey, New York City (LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Dravo ... Ultramares v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 181, 174 N.E. 441 (1931); Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 164, 159 N.E. 896 (1928); Beck v. FMC Corp., 53 A.D.2d 118, 385 N.Y.S.2d 956 (4th Dep't 1976), aff'd mem., 42 N.Y.2d 1027, 369 N.E.2d 10, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1011 (1977). When LILCO ... ...