Zoller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1,1,2 |
| Citation | 137 A.D.2d 947,525 N.Y.S.2d 364 |
| Parties | William ZOLLER et al., Respondents, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Appellant. (Action) Richard H. STONE et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Appellant-Respondent. (Action) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lee & Leforestier (Jill Nagy, of counsel), Troy, for appellant.
Hicks & Bailly (Stephen F. Bailly, of counsel), Albany, for William Zoller and another, respondents.
Gerald A. Harley, Hoosick Falls, for Richard H. Stone and another, respondents-appellants.
Before KANE, J.P., and CASEY, LEVINE, HARVEY and MERCURE, JJ.
Appeal, in action No. 1, from an order of the Supreme Court (Travers, J.), entered June 5, 1987 in Rensselaer County, which denied defendant's motion to, inter alia, amend its answer or dismiss the complaint.
Cross appeals, in action No. 2, from an order of the Supreme Court (Keniry, J.), entered June 30, 1987 in Rensselaer County, which denied defendant's motion to amend its answer and partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss certain causes of action in the complaint.
The above entitled actions have been consolidated on this appeal by order of this court. THE ZOLLERS' ACTION (Action No. 1.)
William and Agnes Zoller, husband and wife, commenced an action against defendant in October 1985. Their complaint alleged that defendant negligently installed an electrical transformer at their residence in the City of Rensselaer in or about January 1978 which has resulted in the premature burn-out of electrical appliances in their home, causing them damages in the amount of $20,000, although the itemized damages total only $7,131. In its answer, defendant asserted the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, the expiration of the Statute of Limitations and that the damages should be reduced by the Zollers' own culpability. In November 1986, defendant moved to amend its answer to plead an exculpatory tariff filed with the Public Service Commission and to dismiss the Zollers' complaint as barred by this tariff and the Statute of Limitations. In relevant part, the exculpatory tariff provides:
In case the supply of service shall be interrupted or irregular or defective or shall fail from causes beyond Company's control or because of the ordinary negligence of Company, its employees, servants or agents, Company will not be liable therefore (sic ).
Supreme Court denied defendant's motions, reasoning that the limitation of liability contained in the tariff was prohibited by 16 NYCRR 218.1, which provides:
Every gas corporation, electric corporation and gas and electric corporation shall, where necessary, amend its filed tariff schedules by eliminating therefrom:
(a) Provision attempting to relieve such corporation from liability arising from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of its officers, agents or servants.
(b) Provisions limiting the liability of the corporation for damages resulting from its own negligence in connection with the property owned, installed or maintained by a customer or leased by a customer from a third party.
(c) Provisions limiting the liability of the company for any damages resulting from the negligence of the company in connection with the supplying or use of electricity or gas or from the presence or operation of the company's structures, equipment, wires, pipes, appliances or devices on the consumer's premises.
Supreme Court also found that although some of the Zollers' damages might be barred by the Statute of Limitations, the action itself was not barred since the negligence alleged was continuous. The possible limitation of damages was deferred for trial determination. Defendant appeals.
THE STONES' ACTION (Action No. 2.)
Richard and Anna Stone commenced an action against defendant in November 1982, alleging that since approximately July 1980 stray voltage from defendant's power lines caused electric shock to run through their property in the Town of Hoosick, Rensselaer County, causing injury to their dairy cows and resulting in attendant damages totaling over $700,000. Eleven causes of action were stated. Defendant asserted the defenses of failure to state a cause of action, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, failure to mitigate damages, lack of privity (as to the Stones' claims based on breach of warranty) and that the causes of action were duplicative, cumulative and/or speculative. Defendant moved to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abernathy-Thomas Engineering Co. v. Pall Corp.
...Central, Inc. v. Henry Modell & Co., 212 A.D.2d 213, 218, 628 N.Y.S.2d 56, 59 (1st Dep't 1995); Zoller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 137 A.D.2d 947, 950, 525 N.Y.S.2d 364, 367 (3d Dep't 1988); 22 N.Y. Jur.2d Contracts § 273 (1996). Here, the general language of § IV(f)'s provision that Pal......
-
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Distinguished Properties Umbrella Managers Inc.
...Corp., 262 A.D.2d 1079, 691 N.Y.S.2d 840, 841-42 (1999) (continuous improper delivery of electricity); Zoller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 137 A.D.2d 947, 525 N.Y.S.2d 364, 367 (1988) (same). In the Complaint, however, Chubb has alleged only one negligent act, the delivery of the Notice o......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. PECO
...a. 2. Many courts around the country have ruled similarly in the utility provider context. See, e.g., Zoller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 137 A.D.2d 947, 525 N.Y.S.2d 364, 367 (1988) (“[E]xculpatory clauses should be strictly construed against the person seeking exemption from liability.”......
-
G & K DAIRY v. Princeton Elec. Plant Bd.
...is not a good; and/or (2) stray voltage does not pass through the customer's meter. See, e.g., Zoller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 137 A.D.2d 947, 525 N.Y.S.2d 364, 367 (3 Dept.1988). Accordingly, the Court will grant the defendant summary judgment on the plaintiffs' implied and/or expres......