George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York
38 N.E.2d 455, 287 N.Y. 108, 153 A.L.R. 1122 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates a permissible inference of negligence which the jury may choose to accept or reject. It does not create a legal presumption of negligence that would compel a directed verdict for the plaintiff, even if the defendant presents no rebuttal evidence.
Facts:
- The City of New York installed and maintained a cast iron water main four feet below a street surface.
- The main had been in service for approximately nine years.
- On April 12, 1938, the water main broke, exhibiting a longitudinal split.
- Water from the broken main flooded and caused damage to a restaurant owned by George Foltis, Inc.
- George Foltis, Inc. could not produce direct evidence explaining the specific cause of the break in the city-controlled main.
Procedural Posture:
- George Foltis, Inc. sued the City of New York for negligence in the Supreme Court of New York County, a trial court.
- At the close of all evidence, both parties moved for a directed verdict, on which the trial judge reserved decision.
- The judge submitted five specific factual questions to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, the City of New York, finding it was not negligent.
- The trial judge disregarded the jury's verdict and granted the plaintiff's prior motion for a directed verdict, awarding damages as found by the jury.
- The City of New York, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The City of New York, as appellant, then appealed 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 doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, when applicable, require the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff if the defendant's evidence fails to conclusively rebut the inference of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Lehman, Ch. J.
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not compel a directed verdict for the plaintiff, but rather permits an inference of negligence that the jury is free to accept or reject. The court clarified that res ipsa loquitur is a common-sense rule of circumstantial evidence, not a rule creating a full legal presumption. The burden of proof always remains with the plaintiff. When the doctrine applies, it merely establishes a prima facie case sufficient to go to the jury. The jury, as the trier of fact, must weigh the circumstantial evidence and decide whether the plaintiff has proven negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, even if a defendant fails to rebut the inference, the choice of whether to draw that inference remains with the jury, making a directed verdict for the plaintiff improper.
Dissenting - Loughran, J.
Yes. The dissent would have affirmed the trial court's directed verdict, arguing that the inference of negligence was so strong it became conclusive. The dissent reasoned that the city's own evidence—that the pipes were tested and sound—tended to eliminate the possibility of a defect in the pipe itself, thereby strengthening the inference that they were negligently laid. Furthermore, the city, having exclusive knowledge of the cause of the break, failed to provide any explanation. In such circumstances, the dissent argues that every inference should be drawn against the silent party, justifying the trial judge's decision to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in New York jurisprudence for definitively clarifying the procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur. By classifying the doctrine as creating a permissible inference rather than a legal presumption, the court resolved significant confusion and inconsistency in prior case law. This ruling solidifies the jury's role as the fact-finder in negligence cases based on circumstantial evidence and aligns New York with the majority of American jurisdictions. It ensures that even when a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case through res ipsa loquitur, the ultimate question of negligence remains one for the jury to decide, preventing premature judicial determinations of liability.
Unlock the full brief for George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York