Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co.

New York Supreme Court

Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co.

5 Misc. 2d 961, 159 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3513

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 Misc. 2d 961 (Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co., 5 Misc. 2d 961, 159 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3513 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Matthew M. Levy, J.

It may well be that — in these enlightened times of legal equality between the sexes, and the recognized matrimonial and biological fact that the plaintiff’s loss of an injured spouse’s society may be felt as keenly by the plaintiff in a case where the mate is a male as where the spouse is a female — there is “no logic to the contention that a husband may sue for loss of consortium, but a wife may not where the injury caused by the third party is merely the result of negligence.” (Colden, J., in Passalacqua v. Draper, 199 Misc. 827, 830.) And it seems to be the recent trend in a number of other jurisdictions to acknowledge the anachronism of the earlier view (Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 183 F. 2d 811, cert, denied 340 U. S. 852; Acuff v. Schmit, 78 N. W. 2d 480 [Iowa]; [962]*962Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, 88 Ga. App. 519; cf. McDade v. West, 80 Ga. App. 481). Indeed, I would be inclined to follow that trend were it an open question for this court, notwithstanding that I am aware that in a substantial majority of the States the wife would be denied recovery of damages in such case (see cases cited in 23 A. L. R. 2d 1378,1385,1389-1397 ; and also Seymour v. Union News Co., 217 F. 2d 168; Filice v. United States, 217 F. 2d 515; Nickel v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co., 269 Wis. 647).

But Judge Golden’s views were not approved by the Appellate Division in his department (279 App. Div. 660), and, more definitive, the issue was resolved for this State by the Court of Appeals in Landwehr v. Barbas (270 N. Y. 537) and in Don v. Benjamin M. Knapp, Inc. (306 N. Y. 675). In the circumstances, if change of rule there is to be, it must be pronounced for me by the Court of Appeals (cf. Woods v. Lancet, 303 N. Y. 349) or be enacted for me by the Legislature (Sen. Int. No. 908, Pr. No. 937, Kraf, Senator [1957 Sess.]).

This motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency must be, and is, therefore, granted. Settle order directing the entry of judgment accordingly.

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

Matthew M. Levy, J.

It may well be that — in these enlightened times of legal equality between the sexes, and the recognized matrimonial and biological fact that the plaintiff’s loss of an injured spouse’s society may be felt as keenly by the plaintiff in a case where the mate is a male as where the spouse is a female — there is “no logic to the contention that a husband may sue for loss of consortium, but a wife may not where the injury caused by the third party is merely the result of negligence.” (Colden, J., in Passalacqua v. Draper, 199 Misc. 827, 830.) And it seems to be the recent trend in a number of other jurisdictions to acknowledge the anachronism of the earlier view (Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 183 F. 2d 811, cert, denied 340 U. S. 852; Acuff v. Schmit, 78 N. W. 2d 480 [Iowa]; [962]*962Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, 88 Ga. App. 519; cf. McDade v. West, 80 Ga. App. 481). Indeed, I would be inclined to follow that trend were it an open question for this court, notwithstanding that I am aware that in a substantial majority of the States the wife would be denied recovery of damages in such case (see cases cited in 23 A. L. R. 2d 1378,1385,1389-1397 ; and also Seymour v. Union News Co., 217 F. 2d 168; Filice v. United States, 217 F. 2d 515; Nickel v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co., 269 Wis. 647).

But Judge Golden’s views were not approved by the Appellate Division in his department (279 App. Div. 660), and, more definitive, the issue was resolved for this State by the Court of Appeals in Landwehr v. Barbas (270 N. Y. 537) and in Don v. Benjamin M. Knapp, Inc. (306 N. Y. 675). In the circumstances, if change of rule there is to be, it must be pronounced for me by the Court of Appeals (cf. Woods v. Lancet, 303 N. Y. 349) or be enacted for me by the Legislature (Sen. Int. No. 908, Pr. No. 937, Kraf, Senator [1957 Sess.]).

This motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency must be, and is, therefore, granted. Settle order directing the entry of judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Misc. 2d 961, 159 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kronenbitter-v-washburn-wire-co-nysupct-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack