Lindenauer v. State, 52066
| Decision Date | 13 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 52066,52066 |
| Citation | 45 A.D.2d 73,356 N.Y.S.2d 366 |
| Parties | Pearl LINDENAUER, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter J. Dooley, Jr. and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Irving Lindenauer, Old Chatham, for respondent.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and GREENBLOTT, COOKE, KANE and MAIN, JJ.
Claimant sustained personal injuries when a bottle containing 'Saratoga Geyser Water' exploded as she removed it from a shelf in a self-service supermarket. Portions of glass recovered after the explosion established that the container bore the legend 'Bottled by the State of New York.' No claim was made against the retailer, distributor or any other party; nor did claimant attempt to prove any specific acts of negligence. She relied totally on the theory of Res ipsa loquitur to affix liability for her injuries and damages on the State. Proof was offered at the trial to show that the bottle in question had been received the preceding week from a distributor as part of a 10-case shipment and kept in the store's basement until placed on the display shelf as normal restocking procedures required. There was evidence that some of this shipment had previously exploded, prompting the return of approximately seven cases to the distributor. At the conclusion of claimant's proof, the State moved to dismiss the claim, but offered no evidence on its behalf. The Court of Claims made an award applying the doctrine of Res ipsa liquitur.
On this record, we must determine whether claimant sufficiently proved that the State had such control of the bottle in question as to permit application of that doctrine with the resulting inference that it was the negligent party responsible for her injuries. It is the contention of the State that, once a bottler surrenders exclusive control of its product to the chain of distribution, it can no longer be subject to liability for a bottle's subsequent explosion under Res ipsa loquitur principles citing Curley v. Ruppert, 272 App.Div. 441, 71 N.Y.S.2d 578 and Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 32 Misc.2d 920, 223 N.Y.S.2d 263, revd. in part Sup., 230 N.Y.S.2d 962, affd. 20 A.D.2d 657, 246 N.Y.S.2d 575. Controlling case law establishes that such a proposition is too restrictive.
The rigid requirement of 'exclusive control' has been relaxed by application of a more flexible common-sense approach to the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur (Corcoran v. Banner Super Market, 19 N.Y.2d 425, 280 N.Y.S.2d 385, 227 N.E.2d 304; Foltis, Inc. v. City of New...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calabretta v. National Airlines, Inc.
...res ipsa "control" concept, recent New York cases have taken a "flexible common sense approach," Lindenauer v. State of New York, 45 App.Div.2d 73, 75, 356 N.Y.S.2d 366, 368 (3rd Dep't 1974), defining "control" as the "degree of dominion sufficient to identify the defendant or defendants wi......
-
VanIderstine v. Lane Pipe Corp.
...for defective products see Gielskie v. State of New York, 9 N.Y.2d 834, 216 N.Y.S.2d 85, 175 N.E.2d 455 Lindenhauer v. State of New York, 45 A.D.2d 73, 356 N.Y.S.2d 366 ). Thus, there is no need for lesser standards of proof before permitting recovery in this In sum, the County has not prod......
-
Centrone v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.
...be shown that defendant is correctly identified with probability as the party responsible for the negligent conduct (Lindenauer v. State, 45 A.D.2d 73, 356 N.Y.S.2d 366). When the doctrine is applied to multiple defendants, the plaintiff still has the burden to establish the negligence of e......
-
Our Lady of Good Counsel, Roman Catholic Church and School v. Ball
... ... CHURCH AND SCHOOL et al., Respondents, ... Ira M. BALL, as Commissioner of the State Bingo Control ... Commission, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents ... Supreme Court, Appellate ... ...