Strauss v. Bell Realty Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyPublic utilitiesnegligencedutypublic policyprivity

Facts

Plaintiff, a 77-year-old tenant in a Queens apartment building, received electricity to his apartment from Con Edison under his own agreement. Con Edison separately supplied electricity to the building's common areas under an agreement with the landlord, Belle Realty Company. During the 1977 New York City blackout, plaintiff had no running water because the building's water was supplied by electric pump, so he went to the basement to get water and fell on dark, allegedly defective basement stairs. He sued Con Edison for negligence in failing to provide electricity to the common areas.

Issue

Whether Con Edison owed a duty of care to a tenant injured in a building's common area during the blackout when the utility's contract for lighting that area was with the landlord, not the tenant. More broadly, the question was whether public policy permits extending the utility's duty beyond its contractual customer in the context of a city-wide blackout.

Rule

A negligence defendant is liable only for breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff, and the scope of duty is defined not by mere foreseeability or strict privity alone but by public policy considerations that keep liability within controllable bounds. In the context of a metropolis-wide blackout, a utility's liability for injuries in a building's common areas resulting from failure to provide electricity is limited to the contractual relationship and does not extend to a noncustomer tenant injured there.

🔒

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 20-hour blackout affecting most of Chicago, Nina Patel, a tenant in a mid-rise apartment building, slipped in an unlit laundry room in the basement and broke her wrist. The electricity for her apartment was supplied under her own account with Lakefront Power Services, but the building owner separately contracted with the utility for lighting in the hallways, stairwells, and laundry room.

If Nina sues the utility for negligence based on the loss of electricity to the building's common areas, which is the strongest argument for the utility?

Explanation. The governing rule is that duty is not defined solely by foreseeability or by strict privity, but by public policy limiting liability to controllable bounds. In the context of a metropolis-wide blackout, a utility's duty for common-area service is limited to the contractual customer for that service, here the landlord, not the tenant. Derived from Strauss v. Bell Realty Co. (n.d.).