Henry v. Vann
| Citation | 124 A.D.2d 783,508 N.Y.S.2d 502 |
| Parties | Sharyn HENRY, et al., Respondents, v. Jessie VANN, Jr., Defendant, Monroe Tube Company, Inc., Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1986 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Friedlander, Gaines, Cohen, Rosenthal & Rosenberg, New York City (Martin J. Semel, of counsel), for appellant.
Gurda, Gurda & McBride, Middletown (Steven A. Kimmel, of counsel), for respondents.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the defendant Monroe Tube Company, Inc. (hereinafter Monroe) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ruskin, J.), dated October 24, 1985, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the plaintiffs' third cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs to the appellant payable by the plaintiffs, and Monroe's motion to dismiss the third cause of action asserted in the complaint is granted.
The third cause of action asserted in the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Monroe breached its duty to protect innocent third parties from injury due to the intoxication of one of its employees in that, after directing its employee, the defendant Vann, to leave his job because he was too intoxicated to function safely and properly, Monroe allowed that employee to operate his automobile while in such an impaired state. We decline to extend the duty of an employer to such extensive and unreasonable parameters. In not allowing Vann to remain on the job and instead directing him to leave its premises, Monroe, through its agent, violated no legally cognizable duty owing to the decedents.
The common-law duty to supervise the conduct of patrons or guests in consuming alcoholic beverages does not extend beyond the area where supervision and control may reasonably be exercised (Wright v. Sunset Recreation, 91 A.D.2d 701, 457 N.Y.S.2d 606; Paul v. Hogan, 56 A.D.2d 723, 392 N.Y.S.2d 766). In the instant case, Monroe was not the dispenser of liquor to its employee. The complaint merely alleges that Vann returned from his meal break in an inebriated state. To hold Monroe to a higher duty of care than an employer which dispensed the intoxicating liquor would be patently unjust (see, Edgar v. Kajet, 55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 631, lv. dismissed 41 N.Y.2d 802, 902, 393 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 362 N.E.2d 626 ). Moreover, the complaint expressly states that the accident occurred not on the employer's premises but,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Widera v. Ettco Wire and Cable Corp.
...523, 528, 478 N.Y.S.2d 838, 467 N.E.2d 502; Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 785, 390 N.Y.S.2d 393, 358 N.E.2d 1019; Henry v. Vann, 124 A.D.2d 783, 784, 508 N.Y.S.2d 502, aff'd 71 N.Y.2d 76, 524 N.Y.S.2d 1, 518 N.E.2d In reaching this conclusion, we are not unaware that "[i]n fixing the bou......
-
D'Amico v. Christie
...The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Monroe "violated no legally cognizable duty owing to the decedents." (124 A.D.2d 783, 784, 508 N.Y.S.2d 502.) We Dram Shop Act Claim We first consider D'Amico's claim against the Association under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § ......
- Jones v. Brooklyn Union Gas Corp.
-
Henry v. Vann
...507 N.E.2d 1091 Henry (Sharyn), Stockdale (Arthur B.) v. Vann (Jessie, Jr.) NO. 132 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Mar 24, 1987 124 A.D.2d 783, 508 N.Y.S.2d 502 FINALITY OF JUDGEMENTS AND ORDERS GRANTED OR Motion for leave to appeal dismissed. ...