Morelli v. Ragan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morelli v. Ragan

45 A.D.2d 1022, 358 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4275

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 1022 (Morelli v. Ragan) 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

Morelli v. Ragan, 45 A.D.2d 1022, 358 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 23,1972 which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s second affirmative defense based upon title 46 (§ 183, subd. [a]) of the United States Code. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements and plaintiff’s motion denied. This action arises from an accident at sea in which a motorboat owned and operated by defendant, and in which plaintiff’s intestate was a passenger, overturned. The. complaint alleged negligent operation and control and that defendant was " otherwise careless, reckless and negligent in the premises ”. The answer generally denied those allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that if he were found liable, then his liability should be limited to the value of the vessel (U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 183, subd. [a]). The limitation applies where the injury is occasioned without the "privity or knowledge” of the owner. The limitation does not apply where the injury results solely through the active negligence of the owner-operator (King v. Liotti, 190 Mise. 652). Under the general language of the complaint, however, it is possible that plaintiff could prove some misconduct which would entitle defendant to assert the statute as a defense (The Spare Time II, 36 F. Supp. 642; Blackler v. Jacobus Transp. Go., 243 F. 2d 733). Special Term denied the motion because of defendant’s failure to show a defect in the boat unknown to him. This was error. The burden is upon plaintiff to establish liability and then on defendant to prove that he is within the statute. Under the reasoning of Special Term, defendant would have had to establish his liability to prevail. Accordingly, the motion should be denied. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 23,1972 which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s second affirmative defense based upon title 46 (§ 183, subd. [a]) of the United States Code. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements and plaintiff’s motion denied. This action arises from an accident at sea in which a motorboat owned and operated by defendant, and in which plaintiff’s intestate was a passenger, overturned. The. complaint alleged negligent operation and control and that defendant was " otherwise careless, reckless and negligent in the premises ”. The answer generally denied those allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that if he were found liable, then his liability should be limited to the value of the vessel (U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 183, subd. [a]). The limitation applies where the injury is occasioned without the "privity or knowledge” of the owner. The limitation does not apply where the injury results solely through the active negligence of the owner-operator (King v. Liotti, 190 Mise. 652). Under the general language of the complaint, however, it is possible that plaintiff could prove some misconduct which would entitle defendant to assert the statute as a defense (The Spare Time II, 36 F. Supp. 642; Blackler v. Jacobus Transp. Go., 243 F. 2d 733). Special Term denied the motion because of defendant’s failure to show a defect in the boat unknown to him. This was error. The burden is upon plaintiff to establish liability and then on defendant to prove that he is within the statute. Under the reasoning of Special Term, defendant would have had to establish his liability to prevail. Accordingly, the motion should be denied. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 1022, 358 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morelli-v-ragan-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack