From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hauser v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 21, 1989

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The injured claimant, a lineman for the New York Telephone Company, was injured while assisting in the removal of a telephone cable located above a highway. The cable fell prematurely into oncoming traffic, and the claimant was flung from the telephone pole. We agree with the trial court's determination that the State cannot be held liable to the claimant based upon an alleged violation of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) since the claimant failed to establish that the State was the owner of the work site (see generally, Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 N.Y.2d 290; Celestine v City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, affd 59 N.Y.2d 938).

The court properly rejected the claimant's contention that Highway Law § 104 imposed a duty upon the State to close the highway under the circumstances present here. No evidence was offered that the State Department of Transportation had been notified of the Telephone Company's project. Furthermore, while the State must maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition, this duty is imposed for the benefit of the traveling public, not for the benefit of the employees of an independent contractor who must look to their employer for protection (cf., Lopes v Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617).

Finally, the claimant failed to establish the existence of a special duty on the part of the State Police which would operate to impose liability on the State for his injuries (see, e.g., Garrett v Holiday Inns, 58 N.Y.2d 253). The evidence was undisputed that the State Trooper who arrived on the scene before the accident occurred was told by the company foreman that he would not be needed to stop traffic until later that morning when the cable was ready to be lowered. It is also undisputed that the incident occurred prior to the time agreed upon that the State Police would be needed to control traffic at the worksite. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hauser v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Hauser v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT F. HAUSER et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 21, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
538 N.Y.S.2d 24

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. City of New York

The undisputed evidence demonstrated that neither the City of New York nor the New York City Department of…

Villani v. City of New York

We agree with the IAS court's determination that the City cannot be held liable to plaintiff, as plaintiff…