Rivera v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Rivera v. City of New York

182 N.E.2d 284, 11 N.Y.2d 856, 227 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1962 N.Y. LEXIS 1271

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by90 cases

This text of 182 N.E.2d 284 (Rivera v. City of New York) 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

Rivera v. City of New York, 182 N.E.2d 284, 11 N.Y.2d 856, 227 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1962 N.Y. LEXIS 1271 (N.Y. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum.

The judgment should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. Where the evidence as to the cause of the accident which injured plaintiff is undisputed, the question as to whether any act or omission of the defendant was a proximate cause thereof is one for the court and not for the jury. (Hoffman v. King, 160 N. Y. 618, 628; Gralton v. Oliver, 277 App. Div. 449, 454, affd. 302 N. Y. 864; Bolsenbroek v. Tully & Di Napoli, 12 A D 2d 376, affd. 10 N Y 2d 960.) This court has consistently held that the negligence complained of must have caused the occurrence of the accident from which the injuries flow. (Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 N. Y. 104; Applebee v. State of New York, 308 N. Y. 502.) It is clear in the present case that the condition of the bathtub’s plumbing was not the proximate cause of the accident. The hot water created the specific injuries for which damages were sought and determined the gravity of the consequences resulting from the accident, but it did not cause the intervening act which was not foreseeable. (Barney v. Habern Realty Corp., 281 App. Div. 278, affd. 306 N. Y. 820.) The accident was caused by the slipping of a wet boot while the child balanced on the curved edge of the bathtub. (Lefkowitz v. Greenwich Sav. Bank, 293 N. Y. 711.)

Judges Fuld, Froessel, Burke and Foster poncur in Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye and Van Voorhis dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that the record presents questions of fact as to causation and foreseeability.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Memorandum.

The judgment should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. Where the evidence as to the cause of the accident which injured plaintiff is undisputed, the question as to whether any act or omission of the defendant was a proximate cause thereof is one for the court and not for the jury. (Hoffman v. King, 160 N. Y. 618, 628; Gralton v. Oliver, 277 App. Div. 449, 454, affd. 302 N. Y. 864; Bolsenbroek v. Tully & Di Napoli, 12 A D 2d 376, affd. 10 N Y 2d 960.) This court has consistently held that the negligence complained of must have caused the occurrence of the accident from which the injuries flow. (Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 N. Y. 104; Applebee v. State of New York, 308 N. Y. 502.) It is clear in the present case that the condition of the bathtub’s plumbing was not the proximate cause of the accident. The hot water created the specific injuries for which damages were sought and determined the gravity of the consequences resulting from the accident, but it did not cause the intervening act which was not foreseeable. (Barney v. Habern Realty Corp., 281 App. Div. 278, affd. 306 N. Y. 820.) The accident was caused by the slipping of a wet boot while the child balanced on the curved edge of the bathtub. (Lefkowitz v. Greenwich Sav. Bank, 293 N. Y. 711.)

Judges Fuld, Froessel, Burke and Foster poncur in Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye and Van Voorhis dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that the record presents questions of fact as to causation and foreseeability.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.E.2d 284, 11 N.Y.2d 856, 227 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1962 N.Y. LEXIS 1271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack