Corbett v. St. Vincent's Indus. Sch. of Utica

• Decision Date: 08 December 1903
• Citation: 68 N.E. 997,177 N.Y. 16
• Parties: CORBETT v. ST. VINCENT'S INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL OF UTICA.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

177 N.Y. 16

68 N.E. 997

CORBETT

v.ST. VINCENT'S INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL OF UTICA.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 8, 1903.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by James Corbett, by Michael J. Corbett, his guardian ad litem, against the St. Vincent's Industrial School of Utica. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (79 N. Y. Supp. 369) reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff and granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Henry E. Miller, for appellant.

William Kernan, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The plaintiff, a boy under §6 years of age, brought this action in the name of his guardian ad litem against this defendant to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by him while confined as a prisoner by the defendant, having been required to do some work in a laundry in which a machine called a ‘steam mangle’ was in operation in doing the work. The plaintiff was assigned to duty in operating the mangle, assisted by another boy. He had never worked upon such a machine before, and it is claimed that he received no instructions from the managers of the defendant institution in regard to the management of the mangle, and while operating it on September 14, 1900, his right hand was caught between the cylinders and severely burned, mutilated, and crushed, and thus he became permanently disabled. The case was submitted to the jury, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered, but was reversed at the Appellate Division.

In view of the extensive discussion which the case received in the learned court below, the only question that need be discussed in this court is whether the general law of negligence has any application to the case, inasmuch as it is not claimed that there was any neglect on the part of the officers or managers of the defendant in the selection of their inferior agents, even though the injury occurred by the negligence of such agents. The relation of master and servant did not exist between the plaintiff and the defendant, nor any other relation based upon contract. The plaintiff, instead of being committed to a prison or reformatory, was confined in this institution in pursuance of law; and even if it be true, as claimed by the plaintiff's counsel, that he received no instructions as to the operation of the machine, or any warning from the defendant that it was dangerous, or that the defendant posted no rules or regulations governing the management of such machinery, the question arises whether the defendant can be subjected to liability. The defendant is a charitable institution, organized under the laws of this state to support and maintain an industrial school and asylum for the sustenance and education of male orphan children. Boys were committed to the defendant from various counties by the overseers of the poor, justices of the peace, police magistrates, and judges. For the care, education, and support of such boys the counties, including Onondaga county, allowed and paid to the defendant for most of the boys $2 per week. It appears that the defendant had a farm in connection with its institution, upon which it raised vegetables and hay for the institution, and upon which some of the boys did some work. It also manufactured clothing for the boys, and made stockings for their use. For these purposes defendant had sewing and knitting machines. The articles so manufactured by the inmates of the institution were not sold unless there was a surplus. The defendant maintained a school for these boys, at which they were required to attend, and also maintained a laundry, in which was laundried the clothing of the inmates, but not for the public, or for any one outside of the institution. There is no proof in the case that any of the agents of the defendant were incompetent to discharge the duties assigned to them, or that the managers were negligent in their selection or retention of its employés. On the 19th day of August, 1900, the plaintiff, who was then about 15 years of age, was arrested upon the charge of petit larceny. He was tried and convicted of this offense before a police justice, and thereupon committed to the defendant institution, where he was received and detained until after the occurrence of the accident in question, when he was discharged. By section 713 of the Penal Code the court in which he was convicted was required to commit him to some reformatory, charitable or other institution authorized by law to receive and take charge of minors. There is no dispute as to the fact that this institution was authorized to receive and take care of the plaintiff, and no question as to the legality of his commitment. It is quite true that the defendant was not obliged to receive him, but, having decided to place him in the institution, the mere fact that it could have refused has no bearing on the question of liability.

When we read the statutes under which this institution was incorporated, and which...