Continental Cas. Co. v. Duffy
| Decision Date | 05 July 1966 |
| Citation | 26 A.D.2d 630,272 N.Y.S.2d 470 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. and John O'Donnell, etc. Respondents, v. James DUFFY et al., Defendants, and McKesson & Robbins and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants. |
Before UGHETTA, Acting P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a declaratory judgment and for other relief, defendants McKesson & Robbins and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 3, 1966 after a nonjury trial on submitted facts, which adjudged and declared, Inter alia, that a certain tort claim asserted against the plaintiff O'Donnell is covered by the insurance policy issued by defendant Liberty Mutual to defendant McKesson & Robbins.
Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to plaintiffs.
The duties of James Duffy, a truck driver employed by McKesson & Robbins, included the making of deliveries of liquor. He arrived at the tavern owned and operated by the plaintiff O'Donnell in order to deliver four cases of whiskey. The delivery was to be made through metal cellar doors which opened on the sidewalk in front of the tavern. Duffy obtained the key to open the cellar doors from the bartender and opened them therewith. There was no crossbar on the cellar doors to hold them securely. The bartender remained inside the tavern. The only ones present and participating in the delivery were Duffy and his helper. The helper entered the cellar and Duffy put the first case of whiskey down the slide. The cellar doors blew over and hit Duffy on the head.
In the complaint in his negligence action against Raymax Associates (the owner of the realty) and against O'Donnell, Duffy alleged that 'the negligence of the defendants consisted in the fact that the cellar doors open in such a fashion that a wind could shut it and that no cross bar existed to keep the doors open so that the action of the elements would not dislodge the doors, although general usage, custom or practice is to have a cross bar on cellar doors to prevent accidents such as and did actually occur to this plaintiff.'
The automobile policy issued by Liberty Mutual to McKesson & Robbins provided that the definition of insured includes 'the named insured and also includes any person while using an owned automobile or a hired automobile and any person or organization legally responsible for the use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shippers Development Co. v. General Ins. Co. of America
...from his employer's truck into a chickenhouse, was covered by the insurance on the consignor's truck. In Continental Casualty Co. v. Duffy (1966) 26 A.D.2d 630, 272 N.Y.S.2d 470, the court found that there was a direct causal connection between the unloading of the truck and an accident occ......
-
Continental Casualty Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
...cites Tri-State Concrete, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 5 A.D.2d 384, 172 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1958); and Continental Casualty Co. v. Duffy, 26 A.D.2d 630, 272 N.Y.S.2d 470 (1966). There is no doubt that Linch was in absolute control of and responsible for the service station premises. He owed......
-
Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company. v. Statemen Ins. Co., 1169A223
...North America (1964), (D.C.) 228 F.Supp. 896), and as O'Donnell was using the McKesson & Robbins truck (Continental Casualty Company v. Duffey (1966), (26 A.D.2d 630) 272 N.Y.S.2d 470), i. e., they were negligent in maintaining their premises and in failing to warn Walker, their negligence ......
-
M v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...was a direct causal connection between the incident and the unloading of Striker's truck. See, e.g., Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Duffy, 26 A.D.2d 630, 631, 272 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966); Bundschu v. Travelers Ins. Co., 22 A.D.2d 907, 907, 255 N.Y.S.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964). Using Strike......