Food Pageant, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co.
54 N.Y.2d 167, 429 N.E.2d 738, 445 N.Y.S.2d 60 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public utility may be held liable for gross negligence, and a jury can find such negligence without expert testimony establishing the standard of care if the alleged negligent acts are within the common understanding of a layperson, such as failing to follow direct instructions during an emergency.
Facts:
- On July 13, 1977, two lightning strikes hit transmission lines for Consolidated Edison of New York (Con Edison), initiating a power crisis.
- At the time of the strikes, several of Con Edison's power sources were out of service, including the Hudson-Farragut power line, the Indian Point 2 power plant, and certain gas turbines.
- William Jurith, a Con Edison employee, was in charge of the power system during the developing crisis.
- The New York Power Pool, a coordinating body for regional utilities, repeatedly instructed Jurith to "shed load" (reduce voltage) to stabilize the system and prevent a total collapse.
- Jurith failed to comply with these directions from the power pool.
- Shortly after these events, Con Edison's entire electrical system blacked out, affecting millions of customers.
- A grocery store chain, a Con Edison customer, suffered significant food spoilage and loss of business as a direct result of the power outage.
Procedural Posture:
- A grocery store chain sued Consolidated Edison of New York in a New York trial court (Trial Term) for damages.
- The case was tried before a jury, which was instructed it could only find for the plaintiff if it determined Con Edison was grossly negligent.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding Con Edison grossly negligent and awarding $40,500 in damages.
- Con Edison, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment without a written opinion.
- The Appellate Division then granted Con Edison, as appellant, 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:
Is expert testimony required to establish the standard of care for a public utility in a gross negligence case where the evidence includes an employee's failure to follow direct instructions from a regional power authority during a system-wide emergency?
Opinions:
Majority - Gabrielli, J.
No. Expert testimony is not required to establish the standard of care when the facts are of such a nature that jurors are competent to form an opinion based on their common sense and experience. While public utilities operate in a technical field, some actions are so clearly negligent that they do not require specialized knowledge to be judged. The court reasoned that although many technical issues necessitate expert guidance, the failure of Con Edison's system operator to follow repeated, direct instructions from the power pool during a major emergency is a matter a lay jury can evaluate. This conduct, along with other staffing and operational decisions, could be assessed by jurors to determine if it constituted gross negligence, which is defined as the 'failure to exercise even slight care,' without the need for an expert to define the appropriate standard of behavior for a utility company.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for gross negligence claims against public utilities. It establishes that plaintiffs may not need to present costly expert testimony on the standard of care if the utility's alleged misconduct is facially unreasonable or involves a failure of common sense, such as ignoring direct orders during a crisis. By allowing juries to evaluate such conduct directly, the ruling prevents utilities from using the technical complexity of their operations as a shield against liability for fundamental failures in judgment. This precedent lowers a potential barrier for plaintiffs in similar cases and reinforces that a jury's common sense is a valid tool for assessing even technically complex situations.
