Hall v. Smathers
| Decision Date | 15 July 1925 |
| Citation | 148 N.E. 654,240 N.Y. 486 |
| Parties | HALL v. SMATHERS et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Irene D. Hall against Elmer E. Smathers and another. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (208 App. Div. 599, 203 N. Y. S. 721), reversing on the facts and the law a judgment of the Trial Term in favor of the plaintiff, she appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Edward A. Scott, of New York City (Arthur Ofner, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Ewing, Alley & Voorhees, of New York City (Caruthers Ewing, of Memphis, Tenn., of counsel), for respondents.
The defendants were the owners of premises No. 2128 Broadway in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, being a large apartment house with apartments of various sizes rented and leased to tenants. Mrs. Hall, the plaintiff, in September of 1920 was one of these tenants. She had, together with the other tenants, a right to use the cellar or a specified portion thereof for storeroom purposes. The defendants kept and maintained a superintendent named Roscoe Staats, who had charge and control of the building for the defendants. It appears that he personally at times ran the passenger elevator and had supervision and control over such parts of the building as did not remain in the exclusive possession of the tenants.
In February of 1920 the lessee of a restaurant conducted in the building had vacated the premises leaving in the cellar a large number of cats. The elevator operator, an employee of the owners, asked the plaintiff if she would feed the cats to keep them from starving. The plaintiff not only did this, but thereafter continued to supply the animals with food until they could be removed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The work of removal apparently commenced at once, but for some reason was not complete and effectual. Perhaps the cats were not as anxious to leave as the plaintiff and the defendants' agents were to have them. Between February and September the plaintiff telephoned the society on numerous occasions, which resulted in the removal of many of the cats. The plaintiff personally on several occasions carried cats to the society's office. On September 23, 1920, only three cats remained. During all this period, with the consent of those in charge of the building, and at their request, the plaintiff fed the cats which had not been removed by the society or by herself, and in this particular was doing that which the owner should have done for the welfare of his tenants. A live cat may or may not be an advantage and benefit around a building, but there is no question about a dead one.
In the summer Roscoe Staats took charge of the building for the defendants. The evidence tended to show that he was an incompetent, inefficient, and dangerous man to have about an apartment house as superintendent and to do the work which his position demanded. Frequent complaints were made to the defendants and their agents regarding him. There was testimony that he was drunk most of the time; that he would run the elevator up and down without permitting people to get out until he got ready to let them out, and then he would let them out on a floor they did not want; that he had assaulted callers, insulted visitors, tried to break into apartments. All these matters were called to the attention of the defendants and their agents, and relief was promised. No relief came, however, until after the assault for which this action is brought, and then it came speedily in the almost immediate discharge of Staats.
On the evening of September 23 the plaintiff, with one of her pupils-for she was a music teacher-entered the cellar about 6 o'clock in the evening, with a saucer of bits for the cats, when she was met by the drunken superintendent, and the following scene took place:
‘A. I saw him-Staats came from behind something, from the dark part of the cellar. He came forward reeking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
...employer can still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision (see, Hall v. Smathers, 240 N.Y. 486, 148 N.E. 654; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 317). However, a necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or s......
-
Evans v. Morsell
...378, 236 F.2d 673 (1956); Henderson v. Nolting First Mortgage Corporation, 184 Ga. 724, 193 S.E. 347 (1937); Hall v. Smathers, 240 N.Y. 486, 148 N.E. 654 (1925); Restatement of Agency 2d, § 213, Comment d; Prosser, Law of Torts, pp. 173-176 (4th ed. 1971). 3 Where an employee is expected to......
-
Gonzalez v. City of N.Y.
...in positions in which they can harm others (see e.g. Haddock, 75 N.Y.2d at 480, 554 N.Y.S.2d 439, 553 N.E.2d 987 ; Hall v. Smathers, 240 N.Y. 486, 148 N.E. 654 [1925] ; McCrink v. City of New York, 296 N.Y. 99, 71 N.E.2d 419 [1947] ). For instance, in McCrink, an off-duty New York City poli......
-
The Moore Charitable Found. v. PJT Partners
...agency relation"]; Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159, 161 [2d Dept 1997] [citing, inter alia, Hall v Smathers (240 NY 486 [1925]), Park v York Cent. & Hudson R. R. Co. (155 NY 215 [1898]), and Detone v Bullit Courier Serv. (140 A.D.2d 278, 279 [1st Dept 1988])]......