Bloom v. Jewish Bd. of Guardians
| Decision Date | 29 July 1941 |
| Citation | 36 N.E.2d 617,286 N.Y. 349 |
| Parties | BLOOM et al. v. JEWISH BOARD OF GUARDIANS. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by Harold Bloom, an infant, by Louis Bloom, his guardian ad litem, and Louis Bloom against the Jewish Board of Guardians for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff while in custody of defendant. From the nonunanimous judgment of the Appellate Division, first department, 261 App.Div. 143, 24 N.Y.S.2d 547, reversing a judgment of the Trial Term upon the law and dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed and that of the Trial Term affirmed. Gustave G. Rosenberg and Isidor Enselman, both of New York City, for appellants.
William E. Lyons, of New York City, for respondent.
The defendant is a corporation created by special act of the Legislature, L.1921, ch. 330. In accordance with the powers conferred upon it by that statute it maintains a school where delinquent children committed to it by courts of competent jurisdiction are cared for and given vocational instruction. The infant plaintiff was injured while receiving such care and instruction. Claiming that the injuries were caused by negligent directions of the supervisor placed by the defendant in charge of the boys, the plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the injuries he sustained. He was successful in the trial court. The judgment in his favor entered upon the verdict of a jury was reversed by the Appellate Division on the law and the complaint was dismissed.
Though the plaintiff's tale was contradicted by witnesses produced by the defendant, the defendant does not now argue that there is no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the injuries were caused by the negligence of the supervisor. The Appellate Division refused to interfere with that finding and we cannot now review it. The judgment in plaintiff's favor was reversed solely on the ground that the defendant is immune from liability for injuries to children committed to its care, though such injuries are due to the negligence of a person it has placed in charge of the children.
The decision of the Appellate Division rests upon the authority of Corbett v. St. Vincent's Industrial School, 177 N.Y. 16, 68 N.E. 997. In that case, this court held that a private corporation in caring for delinquent children committed to it by the courts is immune from liability for the negligence of those in the employ of the institution. The rule of immunity formulated in that case by this court was not created by statute. It represents the conclusion of the court that because an industrial school, caring for delinquent children committed to it, is exercising ‘one of the functions of government which the state may exercise, and which it may delegate to charitable institutions created under its laws,’ it is ‘entitled to the same immunity from liability’ for the negligence of its employees ‘that is conceded to the state itself and to all its municipal divisions.’ 177 N.Y. at page 21, 68 N.E. at page 998. The immunity of the agent is derived from the immunity of the principal.
Since that was said the State has waived its sovereign immunity from liability for the torts of its officers and employees. Court of Claims Act, s 12-a, L.1929, ch. 467; see now sec. 8, L.1939, ch. 860. No longer is the State immune from liability for torts of its officers, agents and employees. When immunity is no longer ‘conceded to the state,’ the premise from which the court drew the conclusion that a private institution, performing a function of the State as its agent, is entitled to the same immunity is destroyed. The question is now presented whether the immunity of the private institution continues after the Legislature has destroyed its rational basis.
Even before that time the court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nassau County v. South Farmingdale Water Dist.
...State's immunity from tort liability (see Court of Claims Act, former § 12-a (L.1929, ch. 467, § 1); see, also, Bloom v. Jewish Bd. of Guardians, 286 N.Y. 349, 36 N.E.2d 617). In Bernardine v. City of New York, 294 N.Y. 361, 62 N.E.2d 604, decided in 1945, the Court of Appeals flatly held t......
-
Maldovan v. Cnty. of Erie
...distinguishing our prior contrary precedent on the basis of the State's waiver of sovereign immunity ( Bloom v. Jewish Bd. of Guardians, 286 N.Y. 349, 36 N.E.2d 617 [1941] ). In ( Robison v. State, 292 N.Y. 631, 55 N.E.2d 506 [1944] ), we affirmed a negligence award against a State hospital......
-
Maldovan v. Cnty. of Erie
...distinguishing our prior contrary precedent on the basis of the State's waiver of sovereign immunity ( Bloom v. Jewish Bd. of Guardians, 286 N.Y. 349, 36 N.E.2d 617 [1941] ). In ( Robison v. State, 292 N.Y. 631, 55 N.E.2d 506 [1944] ), we affirmed a negligence award against a State hospital......
-
Domino v. Mercurio
...for the torts of its officers and employees,' and expressly 'assumes liability for such act." (See also Bloom v. Jewish Board of Guardians, 286 N.Y. 349, 36 N.E.2d 617.) The liability of the State for the negligence of its teachers has been recognized in numerous cases in the Court of Claim......