GROPP v. GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA CO, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

William Hazen Peck, for the appellant. Don R. Almy, for the respondent.

Judges

INGRAHAM, P.J. (concurring):
DOWLING, J.:

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from a negligence action brought by Henry E. Gropp (respondent), who claimed to have sustained injuries after being run over by a horse and wagon controlled by the appellant's servant. The original complaint alleged negligence on the part of the defendant's servant. During a prior trial, the complaint was amended to include allegations that the horse was unruly, unmanageable, and vicious, knowledge of which was attributed to the defendant. The Appellate Division initially upheld this amendment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the amendment introduced a new cause of action based on strict liability for keeping a vicious animal, distinct from negligence. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial limited to the original negligence claim. At the present trial, no amendment was made; however, issues and testimony relating to the horse's viciousness were introduced and the jury was charged on the owner's duties concerning a vicious animal, despite this being outside the scope of the negligence claim.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence and instructing the jury on the defendant's liability for keeping a vicious animal when the cause of action was limited solely to negligence.
Whether the plaintiff established negligence by the defendant's servant in controlling the horse.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Appellant's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
205 N.Y. 617	Distinction between a negligence cause of action and a cause of action based on strict liability for keeping a vicious animal.	The Court of Appeals reversed the prior judgment and held that the amendment introducing the vicious animal claim was improper, requiring the trial to proceed solely on the negligence claim.
141 Appellate Division, 372	Properness of amending the complaint to add allegations concerning the viciousness of the horse.	The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's allowance of the amendment, a position later reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that the controlling legal principle, as established by the Court of Appeals, was that the plaintiff's cause of action was strictly one for negligence and did not encompass liability for keeping a vicious animal. The introduction of evidence and jury instructions related to the horse's viciousness improperly expanded the scope of the case beyond the permissible negligence claim. This constituted reversible error because it confused the jury and introduced an issue that had been explicitly excluded. Additionally, in a concurring opinion, it was noted that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence by the defendant's servant, as the evidence showed the servant was operating the horse safely until it escaped control. Therefore, the verdict finding negligence lacked evidentiary support.

Holding and Implications

The court REVERSED the judgment and ordered a new trial. Costs were awarded to the appellant to abide the event. The decision directly affects the parties by requiring retrial limited to the original negligence claim and excluding any claim or evidence related to strict liability for keeping a vicious animal. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming the distinction between negligence and strict liability claims in this context.

Show full summary ...

HENRY E. GROPP, Respondent, v. THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, Appellant.

DOWLING, J.:

The action is one in negligence, plaintiff claiming that he sustained injuries by being run over by a horse and wagon under the control of defendant's servant, and solely through the negligence of the latter. The facts sufficiently appear herein upon a prior appeal, reported in 141 Appellate Division, 372. Upon the prior trial the complaint had been amended by inserting therein an allegation to the effect that the horse in question was unruly, unmanageable and vicious, all of which the defendant knew or ought in the exercise of reasonable care to have known. By a divided court it was held that such amendment was a proper one to be made, and the judgment appealed from was affirmed. The Court of Appeals ( 205 N.Y. 617) reversed the judgment and granted a new trial on the ground that the amendment of the complaint allowed by the trial court introduced a new and different cause of action, as to which that court concurred in the dissenting opinion of the presiding justice of this court. In that dissenting opinion it was held that the amendment set up a new and entirely different cause of action based, not upon the negligence of the driver, the cause of action alleged in the complaint, but upon the obligation imposed by law upon one keeping or harboring a vicious animal, which does not depend upon negligence. Upon the present trial no amendment of the complaint was sought, and the trial proceeded upon the original complaint, which was based solely upon negligence. Despite this fact, and the further fact that the Court of Appeals had called attention to the distinction between the action in negligence which was pleaded and the action for keeping a vicious animal, which was sought to be made the basis of defendant's liability, the entire question of whether or not the horse was a vicious one or one which was apt to shy and become unmanageable was developed by the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses at length, although attention was repeatedly called to the fact that this was an effort to bring in issues which it had already been determined were not properly in the case.

Furthermore, the learned court, over the objection of defendant's counsel, specifically charged the jury as to the duties of the owner of a domestic animal to take notice of the general propensities, not only of the class, but of the animal itself, and as to the knowledge or lack of knowledge of defendant's driver, of the fact that the horse was unruly and unmanageable and easily frightened, as bearing on the question of defendant's liability.

This cause of action having been declared to be one solely for negligence, entirely disassociated from any liability for the keeping of an unmanageable or vicious horse, the admission of this testimony and the charge of the court thereupon constituted reversible error.

The judgment and order appealed from will, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

INGRAHAM, P.J., CLARKE, SCOTT and HOTCHKISS, JJ., concurred.

INGRAHAM, P.J. (concurring):

I concur with Mr. Justice DOWLING, but I am also of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish any negligence of the defendant. I think it clearly appears from the evidence that the defendant's servant was driving the horse in a safe and proper manner, but that the horse escaped from his control, and that the finding that the driver was negligent was without evidence to support it.

Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event. Order to be settled on notice.

GROPP v. GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA CO