Hein v. Sulzberger & Sons Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hein v. Sulzberger & Sons Co. of America

175 A.D. 465, 163 N.Y.S. 995, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10429

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 175 A.D. 465 (Hein v. Sulzberger & Sons Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hein v. Sulzberger & Sons Co. of America, 175 A.D. 465, 163 N.Y.S. 995, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in this action by reason of acts of negligence of defendant White while acting as superintendent of defendant The Sulzberger & Sons Company of America, joining the superintendent individually as a codefendant with his principal. No negligence is alleged save that of the superintendent. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action against defendant White, the superintendent, but found for the plaintiff against the principal, The Sulzberger & Sons Company of America, in the sum of $3,500.

We think such verdict was inconsistent, and leads to reversal of the judgment and to a new trial. Liability of the principal could only be predicated upon the negligence of White, its superintendent, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The company’s liability was not that of a joint tort feasor, but was purely derivative and secondary. The jury by its verdict absolved White from any imputation of negligence or else must have found that plaintiff’s conduct was so negligent as to defeat [467]*467any recovery. In either case such finding was in effect that the defendant company was not negligent. Having found the defendant White blameless, the only consistent verdict which the jury could have rendered as to the defendant The Sulzberger & Sons Company of America, was one of no cause of action. The evidence seems sufficient to charge both defendants, but in view of the verdict in favor of defendant White, no verdict should have been rendered against the defendant company. (Pangburn v. Buick Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228.)

Both judgments entered on the verdict of the jury should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in each appeal to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgments and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs in each appeal to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in this action by reason of acts of negligence of defendant White while acting as superintendent of defendant The Sulzberger & Sons Company of America, joining the superintendent individually as a codefendant with his principal. No negligence is alleged save that of the superintendent. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action against defendant White, the superintendent, but found for the plaintiff against the principal, The Sulzberger & Sons Company of America, in the sum of $3,500.

We think such verdict was inconsistent, and leads to reversal of the judgment and to a new trial. Liability of the principal could only be predicated upon the negligence of White, its superintendent, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The company’s liability was not that of a joint tort feasor, but was purely derivative and secondary. The jury by its verdict absolved White from any imputation of negligence or else must have found that plaintiff’s conduct was so negligent as to defeat [467]*467any recovery. In either case such finding was in effect that the defendant company was not negligent. Having found the defendant White blameless, the only consistent verdict which the jury could have rendered as to the defendant The Sulzberger & Sons Company of America, was one of no cause of action. The evidence seems sufficient to charge both defendants, but in view of the verdict in favor of defendant White, no verdict should have been rendered against the defendant company. (Pangburn v. Buick Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228.)

Both judgments entered on the verdict of the jury should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant in each appeal to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgments and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs in each appeal to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D. 465, 163 N.Y.S. 995, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hein-v-sulzberger-sons-co-of-america-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack