Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp.
Decision Date | 19 January 1976 |
Citation | 378 N.Y.S.2d 417,51 A.D.2d 542 |
Parties | Michael GOEDKOOP, etc., et al., Respondents, v. WARD PAVEMENT CORP. et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Clune & O'Brien, Harrison, for appellant Ward Pavement Corp. and Sichol & Hicks, P.C., Suffern, for appellant John Joseph, Inc. (George S. Hodges, Suffern and Richard Burns, Harrison, of counsel (one brief)).
Aaron J. Broder, New York City (Herman J. Galley, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before RABIN, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, MARGETT, CHRIST and SHAPIRO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered February 24, 1975, which denied their separate motions to amend their answers to include a counterclaim against the plaintiff father for indemnification.
Order reversed, without costs, and motions granted. The proposed amended answers must be served within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon.
This is an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the infant plaintiff as the result of the explosion of a blasting cap. The complaint alleges that sometime during the years 1968 and 1969 defendant John Joseph, Inc. was engaged in demolition work on behalf of defendant Ward Pavement Corp.; that in the course of this work a number of blasting caps were allowed to remain in the area; and that sometime thereafter the infant plaintiff found some of those caps and removed them to his home. Defendants assert that the plaintiff father took the caps and placed them in a jar in his basement that about two years thereafter the infant removed one of the blasting caps and tried to put the point of a compass into the explosive; and that his action resulted in an explosion which caused the infant severe and permanent injuries.
After the service of the complaint and answers, each defendant moved to amend its answer so as to include therein a counterclaim against the father for negligently maintaining the blasting caps in his basement and, accordingly, contributing, if not causing, the child's injuries. Special Term denied the motions, noting that the recent decision by the Court of Appeals in Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35, 364 N.Y.S.2d 859, 324 N.E.2d 338, barred any cause of action based upon a parent's failure to supervise his child.
Although Holdook does bar an action grounded on a parent's failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Landreth By and Through Ore v. U.S.
...action brought on Cara's behalf, Jennie could have been subject to a counterclaim or to indemnification. See Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp., 51 A.D.2d 542, 378 N.Y.S.2d 417 (1976) (action for injuries sustained by infant as result of blasting cap explosion; court allowed counterclaim again......
-
Zikely v. Zikely
...N.E.2d 338; Lynch v. Lynch, 88 A.D.2d 972, 452 N.Y.S.2d 321; Hurst v. Titus, 77 A.D.2d 157, 432 N.Y.S.2d 938; Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp., 51 A.D.2d 542, 378 N.Y.S.2d 417). Assuming the truth of defendant's description of the incident, the injury in the instant case may not have been so......
-
Hurst v. Titus
...on behalf of the child will lie (Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35, 50-51, 364 N.Y.S.2d 859, 324 N.E.2d 338; Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp., 51 A.D.2d 542, 378 N.Y.S.2d 417). Accordingly, within the context of this case the mother, Amanda Titus, would not be liable to her daughter for inju......
-
Hlavinka by Hlavinka v. Slovak Sky Bungalow Colony
...529, 245 N.E.2d 192; see also, Grivas v. Grivas, 113 A.D.2d 264, 496 N.Y.S.2d 757; Zikely v. Zikely, supra; Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp., 51 A.D.2d 542, 378 N.Y.S.2d 417). While conceding that they lack evidence to support the contention that third-party defendant aggravated plaintiff's ......