Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Hatzel & Beuhler, Inc.
| Citation | 24 Misc.2d 434,202 N.Y.S.2d 818 |
| Parties | CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HATZEL AND BEUHLER, INC., Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1956 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Garvey & Conway, New York City (Thomas Rattigan, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Watts, Oakes & Vander Voort, Middletown (V. Frank Cline, Middletown, of counsel), for defendant.
This motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 112, attacks the sufficiency of each of the two causes of action in the complaint herein. It appears from the pleadings that one Sorenson brought suit against Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (herein referred to as Central Hudson) and its employee Lowe to recover for personal injuries sustained when Sorenson was caused to fall on collapsing of a ladder on which he was standing. At the time of his injury, the said Sorenson was an employee of Hatzel and Beuhler (herein referred to as Hatzel), which company was then engaged as a contractor doing work upon premises owned by Central Hudson. Sorenson sued Central Hudson and Lowe in negligence for his injuries, and said suit was settled by Central Hudson for $16,250. Central Hudson now brings this independent action against Hatzel to recover the amount of the settlement and expenses, claiming the right to be indemnified by the latter.
The first cause of action in this action by Central Hudson is based upon an alleged agreement providing that the contractor (defendant Hatzel) should indemnify the owner (plaintiff herein, Central Hudson) from and against any and all liability arising on account of injuries 'occasioned by any act or omission of the contractor, its agents, servants or employees, including any and all expenses, * * * irrespective of any claim that an act, omission or negligence of the owner or the Engineers, their agents, servants or employees contributed to such injury or damage'. Therefore, the right to recover upon this cause of action depends upon a showing that the claim settled was one for injuries occasioned by an act or omission of the 'contractor, its agents, servants or employees', to wit, of the defendant Hatzel, its agents, servants or employees. But, if there is such a showing, it is, by virtue of the express terms of the agreement, immaterial that Sorenson did claim that some negligent act or omission of the owner (Central Hudson), or of its servants, did cause the injuries.
Now, the second cause of action is grounded upon the theory that the injuries to Sorenson were in fact caused by the active and primary negligence of the defendant contractor (Hatzel) and that the negligence of Central Hudson was merely passive in nature. If this were true, there would be an implied right of indemnity. See, McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge, 304 N.Y. 314, 328, 107 N.E.2d 463, 470. To entitle Central Hudson to recover on this cause of action, there must be a factual showing, first, that the claim settled was one for injuries occasioned by an act or omission of the defendant Hatzel, its agents, servants or employees, constituting active or affirmative negligence, and second, that the negligence on the part of Central Hudson contributing thereto was merely secondary and passive.
Now, it is clear that Central Hudson would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. QUECHEE LAKES LANDOWNERS'ASS'N
...without facts to support them are "insufficient to sustain a complaint for indemnity." Central Hudson G. & E. Corp. v. Hatzel & Beuhler, Inc., 24 Misc.2d 434, 202 N.Y.S.2d 818, 822 (Sup.Ct.1956), aff'd, 11 A.D.2d 707, 205 N.Y.S.2d 864 III. The Law of Indemnity The right to indemnity, which ......
-
Arthur Venneri Co. v. Central Heating & Plumbing Co.
...he appears as the adverse party in an action instituted by the one actively negligent. (See, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Hatzel & Beuhler, Inc., 24 Misc.2d 434, 202 N.Y.S.2d 818, affd. 11 A.D.2d 707, 205 N.Y.S.2d 864; Dunn v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 175 N.Y. 214, 67 N.E. 439.)......
-
Chapman v. Sparta
...able to show that in fact the accident resulted solely from defendant's negligence. See Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Hatzel & Beuhler, Inc., 24 Misc.2d 434, 202 N.Y.S.2d 818, 820-21 (Sup.Ct.1956), aff'd, 11 A.D.2d 707, 205 N.Y.S.2d 864 (1960); see also Zebrowski & Assocs. v. City of ......
-
Zebrowski and Associates, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, By and Through its Bd. of Directors for Utilities of its Dept. of Public Utilities
...in a complaint is not conclusive as to guilt following settlement of the claim. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Hatzel and Beuhler, Inc., (1956) 24 Misc.2d 434, 202 N.Y.S.2d 818. Confusion also arises at this point over the application of the phrase "(or is claimed to have ......