Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc.
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | CRANE |
| Citation | 194 N.E. 692,266 N.Y. 244 |
| Parties | CONKLIN v. CANADIAN-COLONIAL AIRWAYS, Inc. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1935 |
266 N.Y. 244
194 N.E. 692
CONKLIN
v.
CANADIAN-COLONIAL AIRWAYS, Inc.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Feb. 26, 1935.
Action by Peggy C. Conklin, as administratrix ad prosequendum of the estate of Arthur V. Conklin, deceased, against the Canadian-Colonial Airways, Incorporated. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (242 App. Div. 625, 271 N. Y. S. 1107), modifying a judgment of the Trial Term for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and a stipulation consenting to reduction of judgment was filed.
Judgment affirmed.
[266 N.Y. 244]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
[266 N.Y. 245]Alfred M. Bailey, of White Plains, for appellant.
G. Everett Hunt, of New York City, for respondent.
[266 N.Y. 246]CRANE, Chief Judge.
On the 18th day of April, 1930, Arthur V. Conklin, then a young man thirty-two years of age, went to the Albany Airport and obtained passage to Newark, N. J. The defendant had a regularly scheduled trip leaving Albany at 2 p. m. The deceased paid for his ticket in cash. Nothing was said to him about flying conditions in and about Newark nor about different priced tickets. The plane ran into a fog at Poughkeepsie, which thickened on the approach to Newark, so that in the attempted landing the plane struck
[194 N.E. 693]
against high-tension electric wires, destroying ship and passengers.
The negligence of the defendant is not disputed upon this appeal; the single point being made that the defendant was relieved from liability in excess of $5,000 for negligence causing young Conklin's death, by reason of the terms and conditions stated upon the ticket which he purchased. Is it the law of this state that a common carrier of passengers for hire can refuse to carry them unless they stipulate or contract that the carrier shall not be liable for its own negligence or that of its employees? This state has never gone that far.
The ticket which Conklin purchased read, in part:
‘This passage ticket is issued by the Company and accepted by the holder hereof on the following conditions: * * *
‘6. That the holder voluntarily assumes the ordinary risks of air transportation, and stipulates that the Company shall not be responsible save for its own neglect of duty, and that the liability of the Company to the holder hereof or his legal representatives in case of accident resulting in death or physical disability, in any event, and under any circumstances, is limited as follows: Class A Contract, (Minimum Rate) Maximum Liability, $5,000.00, Class B Contract, (Double Rate) Maximum Liability, $10,000.00, Class C. Contract, tract, (Triple Rate) Maximum Liability, $15,000.00.
[266 N.Y. 247]‘Company's ticket agents are provided with all three forms of contract. This is a Class ‘A’ Contract. * * *
‘The Holder Hereof Has Read and Accepted The Foregoing Conditions Of Passage.
‘A. V. Conklin,
‘Signature of holder
‘1441 Broadway, N. Y. C.
‘Address.
‘For the Company
‘Truman Sewall
‘General Traffic Manager
‘M. A. Krueger
‘Issuing Agent.’
The carrier did not give to the purchaser the choice of buying a ticket which would allow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., No. 251
...York. See, e. g., Cuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 1912, 222 U.S. 473, 32 S.Ct. 132, 56 L.Ed. 274; Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc., 1935, 266 N.Y. 244, 194 N.E. 692. Cf. discussion in Walton v. Arabian American Oil Co., 2 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 5 Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 377 (1934). 6......
-
Siegelman v. Cunard White Star, No. 14
...Department." 2 There is also the fact that the transportation began in New York. Cf. Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc., 266 N.Y. 244, 248-249, 194 N.E. 3 See also Illinois Livestock Insurance Co. v. Baker, 153 Ill. 240, 38 N.E. 627; Galloway v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 45 W. Va. 237......
-
Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
...last event necessary to make the actor liable occurred (see, Poplar v. Bourjois, Inc., 298 N.Y. 62; Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, 266 N.Y. 244, 194 N.E. 692; Hunter v. Derby Foods, 110 F.2d 970 [2d Cir.] ). Thus, the locus in this case is determined by where the plaintiffs' injuries......
-
Donahue v. Warner Bros. Pictures, No. 4208.
...7 Cir., 100 F. 655, 657; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803, 805, 806; Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc., 266 N.Y. 244, 194 N.E. 692, 694; Dallas v. Whitney, 118 W.Va. 106, 188 S.E. 766, 767; Connecticut Valley Lumber Co. v. Maine Cent. R. R., 78 N. H. 553, 10......
-
Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., No. 251
...York. See, e. g., Cuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 1912, 222 U.S. 473, 32 S.Ct. 132, 56 L.Ed. 274; Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc., 1935, 266 N.Y. 244, 194 N.E. 692. Cf. discussion in Walton v. Arabian American Oil Co., 2 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 5 Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 377 (1934). 6......
-
Siegelman v. Cunard White Star, No. 14
...Department." 2 There is also the fact that the transportation began in New York. Cf. Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc., 266 N.Y. 244, 248-249, 194 N.E. 3 See also Illinois Livestock Insurance Co. v. Baker, 153 Ill. 240, 38 N.E. 627; Galloway v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 45 W. Va. 237......
-
Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
...last event necessary to make the actor liable occurred (see, Poplar v. Bourjois, Inc., 298 N.Y. 62; Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, 266 N.Y. 244, 194 N.E. 692; Hunter v. Derby Foods, 110 F.2d 970 [2d Cir.] ). Thus, the locus in this case is determined by where the plaintiffs' injuries......
-
Donahue v. Warner Bros. Pictures, No. 4208.
...7 Cir., 100 F. 655, 657; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803, 805, 806; Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc., 266 N.Y. 244, 194 N.E. 692, 694; Dallas v. Whitney, 118 W.Va. 106, 188 S.E. 766, 767; Connecticut Valley Lumber Co. v. Maine Cent. R. R., 78 N. H. 553, 10......
-
Houston, we have a (liability) problem.
...even though there be a contract of carriage by a common carrier." (citations omitted)); Conklin v. Canadian-Colonial Airways, Inc., 194 N.E. 692, 693-94 (N.Y. 1935) (holding that New York law prohibits a common carrier from limiting liability for injury or (56.) See Dressel, 623 P.2d at 377......