Stone v. Williams
| Decision Date | 29 November 1984 |
| Citation | 485 N.Y.S.2d 42,64 N.Y.2d 639,474 N.E.2d 250 |
| Parties | , 474 N.E.2d 250 Robert STONE et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Kerry WILLIAMS et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Meadville Corp. et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 97 A.D.2d 509, 467 N.Y.S.2d 879, with costs.
Early in the afternoon of Sunday, April 3, 1977, plaintiff Robert Stone drove into a busy Merit service station on Bay Street in Staten Island for gasoline. The station had four service islands, each with two gas pumps containing two hoses. After Stone's tank was filled, he handed his credit card to the attendant and walked around to the rear of his car to check that the attendant had securely replaced the gas cap. As he crouched to inspect the gas cap, he was struck and seriously injured by the rear of an automobile driven by defendant Kerry Williams. Stone and his wife brought this action against Williams, his wife (Stevens, owner of the automobile), and four corporate entities involved in ownership and operation of the Merit service station (collectively "Merit").
According to Williams, he pulled into the station for gasoline with the front of his car directly behind the rear of Stone's car. However, he was unable to bring the rear of his car close enough to the unused pump and attempted by a three-point turn to turn the car around and move closer. After this maneuver, Williams got out of the car and observed that the hose still would not reach his gas tank, whereupon he returned to the driver's seat intending to back the car up slightly in the direction of the pump. Williams testified that he "was moving slowly but the car lurched backwards." When asked whether he knew what caused his car to accelerate so suddenly, Williams stated: He attributed the sticking gas pedal to the floor mat in front of the driver's seat which had "a tendency to come loose from the carpet." Williams had given the same explanation for the accident (the "accelerator got stuck in reverse") in a report he completed for the Department of Motor Vehicles some weeks after his collision with Stone.
After a bifurcated trial, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs. It awarded Stone $200,000 and his wife $5,000 on her cause of action for loss of services, finding Williams and Stevens 80% and Merit 20% liable. The Appellate Division reversed with respect to Merit, holding that Merit owed no duty to its patrons to control the movement of automobiles at the service station, and that there was no evidence that the accident was caused by anything other than the purported malfunction of Williams' accelerator pedal. Williams, Stevens and the Stones appeal.
Before reaching the merits, a procedural issue must be addressed. The effect of the Appellate Division order on defendants Williams and Stevens was to reduce their liability from 80% of $200,000 to 100% of $100,000, raising question as to whether they have been aggrieved (CPLR 5601, subd. par. ). Since Dole v. Dow Chem. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 143, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382, 282 N.E.2d 288, the right to seek contribution from a codefendant exists from the commencement of an action. A defendant consequently has standing to appeal from the dismissal of the complaint against his codefendant, since such a determination deprives him of his right to recover a pro rata share of the award based on the codefendant's liability (see Stein v. Whitehead, 40 A.D.2d 89,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pasquale v. Ohio Power Co.
...that such error may be appealed. See, e.g., Land v. Highway Constr. Co., 64 Haw. 545, 645 P.2d 295 (1982); Stone v. Williams, 64 N.Y.2d 639, 485 N.Y.S.2d 42, 474 N.E.2d 250 (1984); Cole v. Arnold, 545 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn.1977).In a different context, we recognized a third-party defendant's righ......
-
Miloscia v. B.R. Guest Holdings Llc
...this case, by causing the disability that was the basis for the discrimination claim, is meritless. See Stone v. Williams, 64 N.Y.2d 639, 641–642, 485 N.Y.S.2d 42, 474 N.E.2d 250 (1984) (plaintiff hit by lurching car at gas station; gas station owner merely furnished the condition or occasi......
-
Brereton v. Queens Balark Co.
...summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted against it for common-law indemnification and contribution (see Stone v Williams, 64 N.Y.2d 639, 485 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1984]; Pereira v Hunt/Bovis Lend Lease Alliance II, supra; Tapinekis v Rivington House Health Care Facility, 17 A.D.3d 572,......
-
Di Ponzio v. Riordan
...duty to control the movement of its patrons' automobiles, citing Stone v. Williams, 97 A.D.2d 509, 467 N.Y.S.2d 879, affd 64 N.Y.2d 639, 485 N.Y.S.2d 42, 474 N.E.2d 250. However, as noted by the court, when the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Second Department in Stone v. Will......