Court Opinion

ID: 9867198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 15:20:13.338054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:35.959515
License: Public Domain

Cardozo, J.,
dissents upon the ground that a negligent tort-feasor is not relieved of liability because the injury has been aggravated by the malpractice of a surgeon (Sauter v. N. Y. C. & H. H. R. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 50); that the two causes of action are, therefore, not inconsistent, since proof of the one will not exclude the other, but both may coexist; that each of the defendants has thus contributed to a single casualty which is the subject of action, i. e., the death of the child to the pecuniary damage of the parents; that a death so occasioned supplies a unifying center which “ connects ” the subject of action in one count with the subject of action in the other (Carpenter v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 93 N. Y. 552, 556, 557; Terkuile v. Marsland, 81 Hun, 420, 424, 425; Deagan v. Weeks, 67 App. Div. 410); that until the adoption of the Civil Practice Act, the objection would have been a good one that each of the causes of action does not affect all the parties to the action (Code Civ. Pro. § 484), but that by Civil Practice Act, section 258, this requirement is omitted with the result that joinder is allowed.
Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur with Hiscock, Ch. J.; Cardozo, J., dissents in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.