Hay v. Cohoes Co.

New York Supreme Court · Torts

TortsTrespassCaseCorporate tort liabilityPublic nuisanceSpecial injurytrespasstrespass on the case

Facts

The defendant company was building a factory and cutting a raceway to supply it with water. Its president located the route, directed where excavated matter should be deposited, and the work was completed to his satisfaction. The declaration charged that the defendants wrongfully obstructed the street, injuring the plaintiff, and also charged that by blasting rocks were thrown onto the plaintiff's house, though it did not clearly state whether the rocks were thrown from work in the street or from lot No. 6. There was testimony that the plaintiff suffered special damage from the street obstruction.

Issue

Can a corporation be held liable, in an action framed as case, for injuries caused by work directed and supervised by its agents where the declaration does not expressly allege negligence, and may a plaintiff recover for special injury from obstruction of a street and for rocks blasted onto his property?

Rule

A corporation is liable for torts committed by its authorized agents when the complained-of acts are in substance the corporation's own acts. If liability is predicated on negligence or unskillfulness of servants engaged in lawful work, negligence or unskillfulness must be alleged; but where the act itself unlawfully invades another's rights, such as obstructing a street causing special injury or casting rocks onto another's land, liability may exist without alleging negligence, unless the injury was due to inevitable accident. One who uses land or works under a street may do so only without disturbing the public easement or directly invading adjoining land.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Creek Textiles, a corporation in Albany, hired laborers to dig a water trench for a new mill. The corporation's president personally marked the trench route, instructed where spoil should be piled, and approved the work daily; during the project, dirt and broken stone were pushed into a neighboring public lane, blocking access to Nora Feldman's shop and causing her unusual delivery losses.

If Nora sues the corporation in an action on the case without expressly alleging negligence, which is the strongest argument for corporate liability?

Explanation. The majority treated tortious conduct as the corporation's own act where authorized agents directed, located, supervised, and accepted the work. In that circumstance, the lack of an express negligence allegation is not fatal if the claim is based on the wrongful act itself rather than negligent performance of lawful work. The opinion rejects both automatic liability for all servant misconduct and the idea that only negligence claims may be brought against corporations. (Derived from Hay v. Cohoes Co. (n.d.).)