TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sisters of St. Dominic v. Orange & Rockland Power Co.

Sisters of St. Dominic v. Orange and Rockland Power Company

Sisters of St. Dominic v. Orange & Rockland Power Co., 79 A.D.2d 1021 (1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 26, 1981
Citations
79 A.D.2d 1021435 N.Y.S.2d 3321981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9931

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated September 27, 1979, which was in plaintiffs’ favor, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. The portion of the charge with respect to the standard of liability applicable to the defendant was erroneous. Once accepted by the Public Service Commission, a tariff schedule, including 'a limitation on liability provision, “takes on the force and effect of law and governs every aspect of the utility’s rates and practices; neither party may depart from the measure of compensation or standard of liability contained therein” (Lee v Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., 98 Misc 2d 304, 305-306 ; Public Service Law, § 65, subd 5; § 66, subd 12; Lo Vico v Consolidated Edison Co., 99 Misc 2d 897 ). Since the tariff schedule herein established that defendant could be held liable only if the damage caused resulted from defendant’s negligence, the court erred when it charged that defendant could be held absolutely liable pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Public Service Law. Furthermore, the charge was ambiguous insofar as the court charged that defendant could be liable for a breach of subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Public Service Law on both the theory of absolute liability and negligence per se. A new trial is necessary since the charge left the jury with an ambiguous and confused statement of the law (see Clarke v Schmidt, 210 NY 211 ; Nourse v Welsch, 23 AD2d 618 ). Damiani, J.P., Gibbons, Rabin and Thompson, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1987: 11992: 11999: 12025: 119872026peak 1987 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle136 Misc. 2d 505 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987)
  2. Black Radio Network, Inc. v. Nynex Corp.44 F. Supp. 2d 565 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
  3. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Washomatic187 A.D.2d 855 (1992)
  4. Franciamore v. U.S. Bancorp.2025 NY Slip Op 51226(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 2025)

Most recent

  1. Franciamore v. U.S. Bancorp.2025 NY Slip Op 51226(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 2025)
  2. Black Radio Network, Inc. v. Nynex Corp.44 F. Supp. 2d 565 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
  3. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Washomatic187 A.D.2d 855 (1992)
  4. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle136 Misc. 2d 505 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Lee v. Consol. Edison Co., 98 Misc. 2d 304 (1978) 30
Lo Vico v. Consol. Edison Co., 99 Misc. 2d 897 (1979) 11
Clarke v. Schmidt, 104 N.E. 613 (N.Y. 1914) 7
Nourse v. Welsh, 23 A.D.2d 618 (1965) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list