Barker v. Kallash
479 N.Y.S.2d 201, 63 N.Y.2d 19, 468 N.E.2d 39 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who is injured as a direct result of their knowing and intentional participation in a serious criminal act is barred from recovering damages in tort under New York public policy. This rule is independent of, and not superseded by, the state's comparative negligence statute.
Facts:
- George Barker, nearly 15 years old, told his companions, Ayman and Anas Kallash, where they could purchase firecrackers.
- The Kallash brothers allegedly purchased firecrackers from the defendant, Daniel Melucci, Jr., who was not quite nine years old at the time.
- The Kallash brothers extracted gunpowder from the purchased firecrackers.
- On June 25, 1976, Barker and the Kallash brothers convened in Barker's backyard to construct a 'pipe bomb.'
- Barker obtained a metal pipe, caps, and a power drill from his father's home workshop to build the bomb.
- After capping one end of the pipe, Barker and one of the Kallash brothers poured the gunpowder inside.
- As Barker was screwing the second cap onto the pipe, the device exploded.
- The explosion resulted in severe injuries to Barker's hands.
Procedural Posture:
- George Barker, through his father, sued the Kallash brothers, Daniel Melucci, Jr., and others, along with their parents, in a New York trial court.
- The defendants Daniel Melucci, Jr. and his parents moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the Meluccis' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the cause of action against them.
- Barker (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Meluccis (appellees).
- Barker (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the public policy of New York bar a plaintiff from recovering in tort for injuries that are the direct result of their own knowing participation in a serious criminal act?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
Yes, the public policy of New York bars a plaintiff from recovering in tort for injuries that are the direct result of their own knowing participation in a serious criminal act. The court distinguishes between violating a statute that merely regulates lawful activity, which constitutes negligence, and engaging in an activity entirely prohibited by law. When a plaintiff's conduct constitutes a serious violation of the law, and their injuries are a direct result of that violation, recovery is denied not because of contributory negligence, but because public policy denies judicial relief to those injured while committing a serious crime. The state's comparative negligence statute, CPLR 1411, does not apply because this public policy rule is a threshold bar to recovery, meaning the plaintiff has no cognizable cause of action. The plaintiff's age did not excuse his conduct, as constructing a bomb is a dangerous and prohibited act, not an innocuous activity for which a 15-year-old would be unaware of the wrongfulness.
Concurring - Jasen, J.
Yes, a plaintiff is barred from recovery when their own egregious criminal conduct is a proximate cause of their injuries, as permitting such a recovery would violate fundamental public policy. The bar to recovery should apply only when two conditions are met: 1) the plaintiff's criminal conduct was a contributing proximate cause of the injury, and 2) the conduct was so egregious that permitting recovery would be inimical to the public interest. While the mere commission of any offense should not bar recovery, the plaintiff's act of constructing a 'pipe bomb' was grievously criminal and so plainly violative of public safety interests that public policy dictates recovery must be denied.
Dissenting - Simons, J.
No, a plaintiff should not be barred from recovery as a matter of law; instead, their illegal conduct should be considered as an element of comparative fault to be determined by the trier of fact under CPLR 1411. The majority's rule is subjective, creating an ad hoc judgment on the severity of a plaintiff's conduct. The rule effectively revives the abolished doctrine of contributory negligence under a different name, which runs counter to the compensatory policy of modern tort law embodied in the comparative fault statute. The legislature intended CPLR 1411 to cover all 'culpable conduct,' including criminal acts, allowing a jury to apportion fault rather than having a judge dismiss the case entirely based on a preliminary and subjective evaluation of the plaintiff's actions.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant public policy exception to the general principles of tort recovery and comparative negligence in New York. It carves out a category of conduct—serious criminal acts—that completely bars a plaintiff's claim at the outset, rather than merely reducing their recovery under a comparative fault analysis. The case solidifies the principle that courts will not aid those injured as a direct result of their own substantial wrongdoing, treating it as a threshold issue of whether a cognizable cause of action exists. Future cases must grapple with defining what constitutes a 'serious' criminal act sufficient to trigger this preclusive rule, creating potential for inconsistent application as feared by the dissent.
