Koch v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
62 N.Y.2d 548, 479 N.Y.S.2d 163, 468 N.E.2d 1 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of third-party issue preclusion, a prior determination of gross negligence is binding on a defendant in a subsequent action by a different plaintiff, provided the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. However, public policy bars governmental entities from recovering damages for the costs of providing additional public services or for lost public revenues resulting from the defendant's negligence.
Facts:
- The Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) acquired two generating units from Consolidated Edison (Con Edison).
- Con Edison entered into service agreements with PASNY to transmit and deliver electricity to PASNY's customers, which included the City of New York and various public benefit corporations.
- The service agreements obligated Con Edison to provide the same quality of service to PASNY's customers as it did to its own.
- On July 13, 1977, a complete failure of electrical service occurred in New York City, lasting approximately 25 hours, which became known as the 1977 blackout.
- The blackout resulted in widespread looting and vandalism by rioters throughout the city.
- The City of New York and its associated public benefit corporations incurred additional costs for essential services like police, fire, sanitation, and hospitals.
- The plaintiffs also suffered lost revenues from sources such as sales taxes, transit fares, tolls, and Off-Track Betting wagers that were not collected during the blackout.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of New York and 14 public benefit corporations sued Consolidated Edison (Con Edison) in the New York Supreme Court, a trial-level court.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of Con Edison's gross negligence, arguing that a prior judgment in 'Food Pageant, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., Inc.' was binding under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
- Con Edison cross-moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for damages related to municipal expenditures and lost revenues.
- The trial court (Special Term) granted the plaintiffs' motion on preclusion and denied Con Edison's cross-motion to dismiss damages claims.
- Con Edison, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Appellate Division granted both parties leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York.
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 third-party issue preclusion prevent Con Edison from relitigating a prior finding of gross negligence, and are municipal plaintiffs entitled to recover damages for the costs of providing additional public services and for lost public revenues resulting from that negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes, as to the preclusion issue; No, as to the damages issue. The doctrine of third-party issue preclusion prevents Con Edison from relitigating the finding of gross negligence because it had a full and fair opportunity to defend itself on that exact issue in the prior 'Food Pageant' case. The court rejected Con Edison's arguments against preclusion, including the existence of inconsistent small claims court judgments (which are statutorily non-preclusive), the relatively small size of the prior claim (as Con Edison had every incentive to defend vigorously given the foreseeability of future litigation), and its plea to reintroduce the discarded mutuality requirement. However, municipal entities may not recover damages for the costs of providing additional governmental services or for lost public revenues. The 'municipal cost recovery rule,' grounded in public policy, holds that public expenditures for governmental functions are not recoverable in tort. Similarly, claims for lost revenues are the 'economic counterpart' of these service costs, are speculative, and are likewise barred by public policy.
Analysis:
This case solidifies two significant principles in New York law. First, it strongly affirms the modern doctrine of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel, confirming that a defendant who has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue and loses cannot relitigate that same issue against new plaintiffs. Second, it establishes the 'municipal cost recovery rule' (also known as the 'free public services doctrine') as a firm public policy limitation on tort damages. This prevents governmental entities from shifting the financial burden of providing essential public services to tortfeasors, thereby defining a clear boundary between recoverable private damages and non-recoverable public expenditures.
Unlock the full brief for Koch v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.