Newman v. Consolidated Edison Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1973 |
| Parties | Erwin NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO., INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Williams & O'Neill, New York City (Joseph J. Klem, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Erwin Newman, pro se.
Before GROAT, P.J., and MARGETT and RINALDI, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed, with $10 costs to defendant, and new trial ordered.
In our opinion, it was error to refuse to admit into evidence the printed copy of Consolidated Edison's rate schedule, although uncertified, which showed 'a public service commission * * * number of this state and an effective date' (CPLR 4540(d)). Said copy is prima facie evidence of the filed original tariff or classification and, pursuant thereto, defendant is not liable for the interruption of its supply of service arising from the ordinary negligence of its employees, servants or agents. The Public Service Commission has approved this limited exemption from liability, in the valid exercise of its powers (Public Service Law § 66, subds. 5 and 12; see Matter of Leitner v. New York Telephone Co., 277 N.Y. 180, 13 N.E.2d 763). There is no attempt to absolve Consolidated Edison from liability for its gross negligence. Moreover, since the scope of the exemption is limited to those acts which disrupt the regular supply of service, it does not violate public policy (Hamilton Employment Service, Inc. v. New York Telephone Co., 253 N.Y. 468, 171 N.E. 710) and is lawful (Public Service Law § 65, subd. 5).
Under the circumstances, there should be a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Professional Answering Serv. V. Chesapeake Tel.
...Co., 79 Misc.2d 165, 166, 359 N.Y.S.2d 940, 941 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.App. Term 1974); Newman v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 79 Misc.2d 153, 154, 360 N.Y.S.2d 141, 142 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.App.Term 1973); Lee v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 98 Misc.2d 304, 305, 413 N.Y.S.2d 826, 8......
-
Lee v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York
...have assumed that the PSC had approved Con Ed's exculpatory clause in the valid exercise of its powers (e. g., Newman v. Consolidated Edison Co., 79 Misc.2d 153, 360 N.Y.S.2d 141), relying on Matter of Leitner v. New York Tel. Co., 277 N.Y. 180, 13 N.E.2d 763. However, Leitner confirms that......
-
Landrum v. Florida Power & Light Co.
... ... Eastern Airlines, Inc., 166 So.2d 196, 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)--assuming the truth of the ... Food Pageant, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., 54 N.Y.2d 167, 445 N.Y.S.2d 60, 429 N.E.2d 738 (1981); LoVico ... Lighting Co., 79 Misc.2d 165, 359 N.Y.S.2d 940 (Sup.Ct.1974); Newman v ... Consolidated Edison Co., 79 Misc.2d 153, 360 N.Y.S.2d 141 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
...causes beyond Con Edison's control. This exculpation has been upheld by several New York courts. E. g., Newman v. Consolidated Edison Co., 79 Misc.2d 153, 360 N.Y.S.2d 141 (Sup.Ct.1973); Devers v. Long Island Lighting Co., 79 Misc.2d 165, 359 N.Y.S.2d 940 (Sup.Ct.1974). But see Danna v. Con......