Buckley v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 300 (1982)
The fellow-servant rule, which historically shielded employers from liability for employee injuries caused by the negligence of co-workers, is abolished in New York, allowing employees to pursue negligence claims against their employers under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Summary
Two City of New York employees, a police officer (Buckley) and a firefighter (Lawrence), were injured by the negligence of their co-workers. Both sued the city, which asserted the fellow-servant rule as a defense. The New York Court of Appeals abolished the fellow-servant rule, holding that it no longer serves a valid purpose and creates unjust hardship. The Court reasoned that the rule’s original justifications are outdated and that employees should have the same right as third parties to recover from employers under respondeat superior. This decision allows employees injured by co-worker negligence to sue their employers directly.
Facts
In Buckley v. City of New York, a police officer was accidentally shot in the leg by a fellow officer who was loading a gun in the station house locker room.
In Lawrence v. City of New York, a firefighter was seriously injured when a fellow firefighter threw a smoldering couch from a second-story window, striking the plaintiff.
Both plaintiffs sued the City of New York, alleging vicarious liability based on the negligence of their co-workers.
The City defended on the basis of the fellow-servant rule.
Procedural History
In both cases, the plaintiffs secured jury verdicts against the City.
The City’s motions to dismiss based on the fellow-servant rule were denied.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the fellow-servant rule continues to apply in New York, barring employees from recovering against their employers for injuries caused by the negligence of fellow employees.
Holding
No, because the fellow-servant rule serves no continuing valid purpose in New York and works an unjustifiable hardship on injured employees. The Court explicitly rejected the rule, aligning with modern principles of justice and employer responsibility.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reviewed the history and rationale of the fellow-servant rule, noting its origins in 19th-century England and its adoption in the United States. The court acknowledged that the rule’s theoretical underpinnings had been discredited, particularly with the advent of workers’ compensation legislation, which significantly curtailed its application. The Court stated, “[t]he inherent injustice of a rule which denies a person, free of fault, the right to recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of another over whose conduct he has no control merely because of the fortuitous circumstance that the other is a fellow officer is manifest.” Despite the City’s argument that the rule should be retained due to its longevity, the Court emphasized that the vitality of a legal principle depends on its continuing practicality and the demands of justice. The court relied on the principle that it should act in the “finest common-law tradition when we adapt and alter decisional law to produce common-sense justice”. The court determined that the fellow-servant rule no longer served a valid purpose and created an unjust hardship for injured employees. The court also made clear that abolishing the fellow-servant rule was within its power, stating: “The fellow-servant rule originated as a matter of decisional law, and it remains subject to judicial re-examination.”