Court Opinion

ID: 9885639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:09:11.293066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.204472
License: Public Domain

Wither, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but on the limited basis that although claimants were guilty of contributory negligence which was the direct cause of their injuries, they should not be barred from recovery, because the consequence of their conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.
At the outset it should be noted that although the State did not cross-appeal (the judgment being in its favor), it has the right to contend on this appeal that the Trial Judge erred in *63holding that the State was negligent in permitting Moseley to escape and that snch negligence was a proximate cause o£ claimants ’ injuries, rendering the State subject to liability therefor (CPLR 5501, subd. [a], par. 1; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§ 70:336-70:337; cf. Hutter v. Levitt & Sons, 36 A D 2d 758). Nevertheless, I think that we must agree with the Trial Judge’s holding in this respect. The nature of Moseley, the offending prisoner, his background and the reasons for his confinement make it clear that the State knew of his dangerous character and that special security measures were required to insure his confinement (cf. Williams v. State of New York, 308 N. Y. 548). The manner in which the State handled Moseley, resulting in his escape after release from hospital care, was properly found to constitute negligence. The principle underlying Weiss v. Fote (7 N Y 2d 579), relied upon by the State, to wit, that a trier of the facts may not be permitted to pass upon the reasonableness of the judgment of a governmental body, does not apply to relieve the State from liability for such conduct.
Turning to the question of claimants ’ contributory negligence, there are some facts contained in the record in addition to those recited in the majority opinion, which point up the negligent conduct of claimants and which should be acknowledged in the face of our limited application herein of contributory negligence principles. Such additional facts are: the cleaning lady advised Mrs. Kulaga that when she went to the house she found $10 on the desk with a note requesting her to do general cleaning; Mr. Kulaga had seen Mr. Moseley’s picture in the daily newspaper and had read therein that he had escaped and was at large ; on the night before visiting the house Mrs. Kulaga asked Mr. Kulaga to go over and check the house, and he said, “ Heck, no, I won’t go over there tonight”. Claimants also checked with Mrs. Kulaga’s uncle and ascertained that he had not called for a cleaning lady to go to the house. The next morning claimants impatiently by-passed the police and decided to check the house themselves. They walked around the house and found a cellar window broken out, but they were not deterred from entering, nor moved to go to the home of the neighbor who had previously checked the house doors for them, to call the police again and obtain assistance on entering. Instead, Mrs. Kulaga got out her key to unlock a door to the house and Mr. Kulaga went to his automobile and took out a crowbar and carried it into the house as they entered together. Inside, they walked up a few steps to the main floor level and on opening a door thereto found a *64man to their left in the hall holding a gun. The man said, ‘ ‘ Come in — I won’t hurt you”, and on seeing the crowbar in Mr. Kulaga’s hands said, “ Are you expecting trouble?” Mr. Kulaga answered, “Yes”. The intruder asked claimants if they knew who he was, and Mr. Kulaga said, ‘ ‘ Yes, you are Moseley” (recognizing him from the newspaper picture and article of the night before), and Moseley said, “ I am the fellow that escaped from Meyer (hospital) ”. He ordered the crowbar dropped, which it was; he tied up the claimants, took off their clothes, raped Mrs. Kulaga, took their money and Mr. Kulaga’s clothes and car keys and left with their car.
In view of all the facts, I believe that we must agree with the Trial Judge that claimants did not exercise reasonable care for their safety on entering the house. As the direct result of their entry therein, they received the injuries for which they sue in this action, that is, their conduct was the proximate cause of their injuries.
In most cases the damages which directly ensue from negligent conduct are reasonably foreseeable, and the actor is held responsible for such conduct. Thus, if the fate which befell claimants on entering their house were reasonably foreseeable we would agree with the conclusion of the Trial Judge that claimants’ conduct bars them from recovering damages herein. It must be borne in mind, however, that even the police, who were looking for Moseley, did not relate him to this house. Thus, however imprudent claimants were on entering the house without police assistance in light of facts which they then knew, it cannot be found that what then occurred to them was reasonably foreseeable.
We have a case, therefore, wherein the direct consequence of claimants ’ negligent conduct was not reasonably foreseeable. In few cases has this problem occurred and been considered in detail (see Palsgraf v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 248 N. Y. 339; Overseas Tankship [U.K.], Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng. Co. [The Wagon Mound], [1961] A. C. 388, [1961] 1 All Eng. Rep. 404). In some cases, negligence (contributory negligence) has been ruled out on the theory of remoteness or intervening cause; but that explanation does not dispose of the fact that the actor’s conduct was a direct cause of his injuries. In the Overseas Tankship case (supra), the House of Lords expressly overruled a 1921 case (In re Polemis, 3 K. B. 560 [1921] All Eng. Rep. 40) which had held a defendant liable for all damages directly resulting from the defendant’s negligent act. In the Overseas Tank-ship case defendants’ employees negligently spilled oil into a *65harbor. The oil spread across the harbor and was ignited from a spark from a shipbuilder’s torch and fire damage resulted. The court held that the fire damage was unforeseeable and that the defendant was, therefore, not liable for it. In overruling the Polemis case the court said ([1961] A. C. 388, p. 422): “ For it does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that, for an act of negligence, however slight or venial, which results in some trivial foreseeable damage, the actor should be liable for all consequences, however unforeseeable and however grave, so long as they can be said to be ‘ direct ’ ”; and the court continued at page 423: ‘ ‘ For, if it is asked why a man should be responsible for the natural or necessary or probable consequences of his act (or any other similar description of them), the answer is that it is not because they are natural or necessary or probable, but because, since they have this quality, it is judged, by the standard of the reasonable man, that he ought to have foreseen them. Thus it is that, over and over again * * # liability for a consequence has been imposed on the ground that it was reasonably foreseeable or alternatively on the ground that it was natural or necessary or probable. The two grounds have been treated as coterminous, and so they largely are. But, where they are not, the question arises to which the wrong answer was given in Polemis. For, if some limitation must be imposed upon the consequences for which the negligent actor is to be held responsible — and all are agreed that some limitation there must be—why should that test (reasonable foreseeability) be rejected which, since he is judged by what the reasonable man ought to foresee, corresponds with the common conscience of mankind, and a test (the ‘ direct ’ consequence) be substituted which leads to nowhere but the never-ending and insoluble problems of causation ”.
At page 424 the court added: “ After the event even a fool is wise. But it is not the hindsight of a fool; it is the foresight of a reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility. The Polemis rule by substituting ‘ direct ’ for ‘ reasonably foreseeable ’ consequence leads to a conclusion equally illogical and unjust ”. The court further stated (p. 426) that if foreseeable damage and also unforeseeable damage result from negligent conduct, the fact that the defendant may be held liable for the foreseeable consequences of his negligence does not require that he also be held responsible for the unforeseeable consequences thereof. “ Each of them rests on its own bottom and will fail if it can be established that the damage could not reasonably be foreseen ’ ’.
*66I am mindful that with respect to a defendant’s negligent conduct he may often be held liable for a resulting injury which is not the normal consequence of such conduct (see 41 N. Y. Jur., Negligence, § 37). Although this principle has been enunciated for the protection of society against the negligent acts of individuals therein (see Prosser, Law of Torts [3d ed.], Unforeseeable Consequences, pp. 288-289), it must be applied in light of the totality of precepts in the law of negligence, including the rule of reasonable foreseeability. The Overseas Tankship case (supra), although dealing with negligence of a defendant and not of a plaintiff, is directly in point in this respect, and the Palsgraf case (supra), also supports this principle.
Moreover, in the case at bar the question is whether claimants were contributorily negligent. As distinguished from the negligence of a defendant, the doctrine of contributory negligence was established to prevent a negligent plaintiff from recovering for an injury which he helped to cause. The duty which an individual owes to himself is of less magnitude than that which he owes to society in general (Rossman v. La Grega, 28 N Y 2d 300; and see Restatement, Torts 2d, § 468, Comment c; Prosser, Law of Torts, Contributory Negligence, pp. 426-430). It is also noted that the doctrine of contributory negligence has been criticized with suggestions for its limitation (2 Harper and James, Law of Torts, Contributory Negligence, §§ 22.3 and 22.4, p. 1207 et seq.-, Prosser, Law of Torts, p. 428; and see Rossman v. La Grega, supra).
In view of the above considerations, I am forced to conclude that despite claimants’ knowledge that Moseley was at large, that apparently some stranger had entered and might be in the house, possibly having entered through a broken window, and that a gun had been left in the house, it was not reasonably foreseeable that a dangerous man, such as Moseley, would be there and would assault them upon their entry to inspect the house (see Prosser, supra, pp. 431-432; 2 Harper and James, Law of Torts, § 22.10, pp. 1230-1231; 1 Warren’s Negligence, Contributory Negligence, §§ 10.02 and 11.04), and that claimants should not be barred from recovering herein because of their conduct.
Accordingly, I concur in the decision for reversal of the judgment and the remission for assessment of claimants’ damages.
Marsh and Gabrielli, JJ., concur with Cardamons, J.; Del Vecchio, J. P., and Wither, J., concur in result in an opinion by Wither, J.
*67Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and matter remitted to the Court of Claims for assessment of damages.