Hawley v. State

New York Court of Appeals

Hawley v. State

210 N.E.2d 358, 16 N.Y.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1240

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1965

DocketClaim 39502

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 210 N.E.2d 358 (Hawley v. State) 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

Hawley v. State, 210 N.E.2d 358, 16 N.Y.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1240 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum : Order reversed, without costs, and claim dismissed. The statutory relation between the State and the custodian of a patient on “ convalescent status ” does not impose a liability on the State for an act of negligence of the custodian not foreseeable by the State in the exercise of reasonable care; and the custodian is not the agent of the State in this relationship so as to impute such a liability to the State when due care *810 is taken in the selection of the custodian (Mental Hygiene Law, former § 132; § 34, subd. 12). It seems implied in subdivision 12 that a patient on convalescent status is not a patient at the institution. The custodian of such a patient is often his family or guardian (§ 132) and no statutory distinction as to the relationship of 1 ‘ agent ’ ’ to the State is made between a member of the family and another suitable person selected as custodian. Reports must in either case be made to the State as to the physical, moral and mental condition of the patient, but the control of the patient is sufficiently independent from the State in detail and management as to - protect the State against liability for acts of negligence not reasonably to be anticipated.

Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan concur in Memorandum ; Chief Judge Desmond dissents and votes to affirm upon the majority opinion at the Appellate Division.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Memorandum : Order reversed, without costs, and claim dismissed. The statutory relation between the State and the custodian of a patient on “ convalescent status ” does not impose a liability on the State for an act of negligence of the custodian not foreseeable by the State in the exercise of reasonable care; and the custodian is not the agent of the State in this relationship so as to impute such a liability to the State when due care *810 is taken in the selection of the custodian (Mental Hygiene Law, former § 132; § 34, subd. 12). It seems implied in subdivision 12 that a patient on convalescent status is not a patient at the institution. The custodian of such a patient is often his family or guardian (§ 132) and no statutory distinction as to the relationship of 1 ‘ agent ’ ’ to the State is made between a member of the family and another suitable person selected as custodian. Reports must in either case be made to the State as to the physical, moral and mental condition of the patient, but the control of the patient is sufficiently independent from the State in detail and management as to - protect the State against liability for acts of negligence not reasonably to be anticipated.

Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan concur in Memorandum ; Chief Judge Desmond dissents and votes to affirm upon the majority opinion at the Appellate Division.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 N.E.2d 358, 16 N.Y.2d 809, 263 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawley-v-state-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack