Lilpan Food Corp. v. Consolidated Edison

Supreme Court of New York, Trial Term · Torts

TortsDutyNegligenceBlackout liabilityContractual relationshipCon Edisonblackoutduty

Facts

On July 13, 1977, a citywide blackout occurred because of Con Ed's gross negligence. During the blackout, plaintiff's supermarket in the South Bronx was looted and vandalized, and plaintiff sought damages for stolen merchandise and damaged fixtures. Plaintiff did not claim spoilage or other losses directly caused by the loss of electricity at its premises; instead, it argued that the general blackout conditions in the city, including the loss of street lights and traffic lights, created disorder that led to the looting. Plaintiff offered expert testimony that in a lower socioeconomic area, such blackout conditions would predictably lead to looting, vandalism, and other antisocial behavior.

Issue

Whether Con Edison owed a duty to plaintiff to recover for looting and vandalism losses caused by the general citywide blackout conditions, where plaintiff was a customer for electricity at its market but claimed damages arising from the failure to supply electricity to the city's streets and public systems rather than to its own premises.

Rule

When a plaintiff's blackout-related harm arises from the general failure to supply electricity to the city, such as to street lights and traffic lights, rather than from the failure to supply electricity to the plaintiff's own premises, the utility owes no duty absent a contractual relationship with the plaintiff regarding that interrupted service. Courts also consider the need for controllable limits on liability and the societal consequences of broad utility liability.

🔒

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.

During a widespread blackout in Cleveland, Nadia Ruiz's pharmacy remained physically intact but was ransacked after nearby streetlights and traffic signals went dark and crowds gathered. Nadia purchased electricity from Lakefront Power Cooperative for her store, but the city, not Nadia, contracted with the utility for the streetlighting system.

If Nadia sues the utility for the value of the stolen inventory, what is the strongest argument against liability?

Explanation. The majority focused on identifying the particular electrical service whose interruption allegedly caused the harm. Although Nadia was a customer as to electricity at her own premises, her theory ties the loss to the general blackout condition caused by failure of public streetlights and signals. Under the opinion, absent a contractual relationship with the utility regarding that interrupted public service, no duty runs to her for those looting losses.