Benway v. City of Watertown
| Decision Date | 09 May 1956 |
| Parties | Betty Backus Casey BENWAY, individually and as Administratrix, etc., of William Henry Casey, deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v. The CITY OF WATERTOWN, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert B. Shaad, Watertown, for plaintiff, appellant-respondent.
Kenneth W. Brett, Corporation Counsel, Watertown, for defendant, respondent-appellant.
Before McCURN, P. J., and VAUGHAN, WHEELER, WILLIAMS and BASTOW, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Special Term dismissing her amended complaint. There are also cross appeals from an order of the same Special Term granting in part plaintiff's motion pursuant to section 292-a of the Civil Practice Act for an order permitting examination of the defendant before trial for the purpose of framing a second amended complaint. The dismissal of the amended complaint was on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Assuming, as we must, the facts alleged in the complaint, and broadly construing the pleading, we believe at least one cause of action is alleged. The action is in negligence for injuries to the plaintiff and for the death of her deceased husband, William Henry Casey. Both the injuries and the death were directly caused by the decedent, who shot the plaintiff and himself, at her home in the City of Watertown, with a certain Belgian Browning Automatic pistol owned by him and for which he had no license or permit. The defendant's negligence rests in the allegation that the police department of the city, after having receive for safekeeping (from the father of the deceased), the particular pistol, 'with knowledge that the same belonged to William Henry Casey, that he had no permit or license therefor, and that he had threatened the life of plaintiff and others with said pistol', returned the weapon to plaintiff's husband. The pistol is alleged to have been returned to William Henry Casey 'prior to November, 1953'; the shooting occurred March 2, 1954. Other grounds of negligence are also alleged, but we do not consider them here in view of the decision upon the theory of negligence outlined above.
In light of the facts alleged regarding knowledge of the defendant's police officers as to the circumstances under which the police came into possession of the pistol, the act of returning the weapon to plaintiff's husband might well be a negligent act for which the municipality should be held liable. See McCrink v. City of New York, 296 N.Y. 99, 71 N.E.2d 419. This affirmative act is not an omission to exercise a governmental function. Murrain v. Wilson Line, Inc., 270 App.Div. 372, 59 N.Y.S.2d 750, affirmed 296 N.Y. 845, 72 N.E.2d 29; Steitz v. City of Beacon, 295 N.Y. 51...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santaiti v. Town of Ramapo
...promises or actions" an affirmative duty, on behalf of Nigro, to safeguard Groesbeck's handgun ( id. ; see Benway v. City of Watertown, 1 A.D.2d 465, 467, 151 N.Y.S.2d 485 ). In addition, the complaint adequately alleged circumstances indicating that the Town, through its agents, knew that ......
-
Schuster v. City of New York
...N.Y.2d 717, 171 N.Y.S.2d 108); to a wife shot by her husband to whom the police had negligently returned a pistol (Benway v. City of Watertown, 1 A.D.2d 465, 151 N.Y.S.2d 485); and to a bystander injured while directing traffic at the instance of a police officer (Adamo v. P. G. Motor Freig......
-
McAndrew v. Mularchuk
...of a police officer which resulted in vicarious responsibility on the part of the municipality may be helpful. Benway v. City of Watertown, 1 A.D.2d 465, 151 N.Y.S.2d 485 (1956), involved a rather unusual set of circumstances. The father of decedent turned his son's pistol over to the polic......
-
Sorichetti v. City of New York
...108 (148 N.E.2d 317)); to a wife shot by her husband to whom the police had negligently returned a pistol (Benway v. City of Watertown, 1 A.D.2d 465, 151 N.Y.S.2d 485); and to a bystander injured while directing traffic at the instance of a police officer (Adamo v. P. G. Motor Freight, 4 A.......