Hawley v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39502,39502 |
| Citation | 16 N.Y.2d 809,263 N.Y.S.2d 6 |
| Parties | , 210 N.E.2d 358 Lawrence HAWLEY, by His Mother, Caroline A. Thomas, as Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim) |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Jeremiah Jochnowitz and Paxton Blair, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Leonard H. Amdursky, Oswego, Morris B. Swartz, Syracuse, and Robert S. Amdursky, Oswego, for respondent.
Order reversed, without costs, and claim dismissed. The statutory relation between the State and the custodian of a patient on 'convalescent status' does not impose a liability on the State for an act of negligence of the custodian not foreseeable by the State in the exercise of reasonable care; and the custodian is not the agent of the State in this relationship so as to impute such a liability to the State when due care is taken in the selection of the custodian (Mental Hygiene Law, Consol.Laws, c. 27, § 132; § 34, subd. 12). It seems implied in subdivision 12 that a patient on convalescent status is not a patient at the institution. The custodian of such a patient is often his family or guardian (§ 132) and no statutory distinction as to the relationship of 'agent' to the State is made between a member of the family and nother suitable person selected as custodian. Reports must in either case be made to the State as to the physical, moral and mental condition of the patient, but the control of the patient is sufficiently independent from the State in detail and management as to protect the State against liability for acts of negligence not reasonably to be anticipated.
DESMOND, C. J., dissents and votes to affirm upon the majority opinion at the Appellate Division.
Order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State
...in the operation and management of its institutions, only for hazards reasonably to be foreseen. Hawley v. State of New York, 16 N.Y.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 6, 210 N.E.2d 358 (1965); Flaherty v. State of New York, 296 N.Y. 342, 73 N.E.2d 543 (1947). It is also clear that negligence cannot be p......
-
Harris v. State
...of a family home-care provider, the case of Hawley v. State of New York (22 A.D.2d 357, 256 N.Y.S.2d 269, revd. 16 N.Y.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 6, 210 N.E.2d 358) is instructive. That case involved a mentally disabled individual who had been committed to a State institutional school. During the......
-
Blanca C. v. Nassau County
...is the Court of Appeals' decision in Hawley v. State of New York, 22 A.D.2d 357, 360, 361, 256 N.Y.S.2d 269, revd. 16 N.Y.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 6, 210 N.E.2d 358, in which the issue presented was whether "the State upon making a contract with another for custodial care of a mental defective ......
-
Prasad v. County of Orange
...have to decide one." Applying the same concept to selection of contract providers, the Court of Appeals in Hawley v. State of New York, 16 N.Y.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 6, 210 N.E.2d 358, held that the State may escape liability in negligence for the acts of a contract provider in the provision ......