Home/New York Court of Appeals/Haman v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

Haman v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

310 N.E.2d 538, 34 N.Y.2d 557, 354 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1796
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 22, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 310 N.E.2d 538 (Haman v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haman v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 310 N.E.2d 538, 34 N.Y.2d 557, 354 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1796 (N.Y. 1974).

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the complaint reinstated and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The verdict was inconsistent in holding Humble Oil and Refining Co. (Humble) liable for negligence, while exonerating Scarsdale Landscaping, Inc. (Scars-dale). At the least Scarsdale had a contractual obligation to indemnify arid hold harmless Humble from any and all loss or damage occasioned by or in connection with the work performed by Scarsdale of snow and ice removal, and sanding, upon request. The liability, if any, of Humble to plaintiffs must be grounded in tort, while the liability over to Humble by Scarsdale could have been based upon contract, as well as tort. The charge of the court, with respect to the rule of Dole v. Dow Chem. Co. (30 N Y 2d 143), was error, because if Humble were entitled on its third-party complaint to recover either on contract indemnity or because it had delegated to Scarsdale all responsibility for whatever caused the accident, there would be no apportionment of damages. (See Rogers v. Dorchester Assoc., 32 N Y 2d 553, 563, 565-566.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and .Stevens concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hirsch v. K Mart Corp.
260 A.D.2d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Kotopoulos v. Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc.
235 A.D.2d 276 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Mesuraca v. New York City Transit Authority
166 A.D.2d 636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Chandler v. Northwest Engineering Co.
111 Misc. 2d 433 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Kirby v. Rouselle Corp.
108 Misc. 2d 291 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Carinha v. Action Crane Corp.
58 A.D.2d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Mead v. Warner Pruyn Division
57 A.D.2d 340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
310 N.E.2d 538, 34 N.Y.2d 557, 354 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haman-v-humble-oil-refining-co-ny-1974.