Locke v. State

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Parties: LOCKE v. STATE.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

140 N.Y. 480

35 N.E. 1076

LOCKE

v.STATE.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 16, 1894.

Appeal from board of claims.

Claim by Frankie G. Locke, administratrix of the estate of Carson E. Locke, deceased, against the state of New York. From an order of the board of claims, dismissing her claim, claimant appeals. Order affirmed.

W. E. Young,(L. H. Northup, of counsel,) for appellant.

S. W. Rosendale, Atty. Gen., for the State.

O'BRIEN, J.

In this case the board of claims dismissed the claim on the hearing upon the ground that a cause of action was not stated. It was alleged that the claimant's intestate received certain injuries on the 16th of July, 1891, upon a canal boat, of which he subsequently died, through the neglect of agents or employes of the state, and that, as the widow and personal representative of the deceased, she was entitled to recover from the state the damages resulting from his death. The claimant's case, as stated, discloses the following facts: That while her intestate, on the day mentioned, was engaged in going south through the Champlain canal with his canal boat, the agents or servants of the state in charge of the lift bridge at Mechanicville, whose duty it was to raise the bridge to a sufficient height to allow boats navigating the canal to pass under in safety, carelessly operated the bridge, and neglected to raise it to a sufficient height to permit the boat to pass through safely; that the agents or servants of the state carelessly lowered the bridge so that it scraped along the top of the cabin, came down and caught on the tiller, and caught the deceased between the bridge and cabin of the boat, and injured him in such a way that he died about two years afterwards. The basis of the claim is the negligence of the agents or servants of the state in operating the lift bridge under which the boat was passing. The liability of the state for this or any other claim must be founded in its own consent, expressed through some act of the legislature. The sovereign cannot be impleaded nor made liable in damages for any cause whatever in the courts of justice, save in such cases as it has itself consented to be made liable. Lewis v. State, 96 N. Y. 71-74;Sipple v. State, 99 N. Y. 284, 1 N. E. 892, and 3 N. E. 657;Bowen v. State, 108 N. Y. 166, 15 N. E. 56;Splittorf v. State, 108 N. Y. 205, 15 N. E. 322;Hyatt v. State, 121 N. Y. 665, 24 N. E. 1093;Murdock Parlor Grate Co. v. Com., 152 Mass. 28, 24 N. E. 854. This state, through its legislature, has created a tribunal for the determination of certain claims that its citizens may have against it, and has consented to be bound by its judgments so far as they proceed upon legal principles. Laws 1883, c. 205. But this assent applies only to a limited class of claims arising from the use or management of the canals. Laws 1870, c. 321. As to every claim, or class of claims, not expressly or by fair implication included within the language of the statute, the state, as the sovereign, is still exempt from liability in any judicial tribunal. Rexford v. State, 105 N. Y. 229, 11 N. E. 514. The jurisdiction of the board of claims under the act of 1883 is the same as that of the canal appraisers under the act of 1870; and unless the state, in that act, consented to be sued, impleaded, or held liable in such a case as this, then the board of claims properly dismissed the case. The jurisdiction which the board of claims may exercise has been conferred by the legislature in the following language: ‘To hear and determine all claims against the state, of any and all persons and corporations, for damages alleged to have been...