New York Law Review

Tag: Allen v. Crowell-Collier

  • Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403 (1968): Limitations on Interrogatories in Wrongful Death Actions

    21 N.Y.2d 403 (1968)

    CPLR 3130 prohibits the use of interrogatories in wrongful death actions, regardless of the underlying legal theory of recovery, such as negligence or breach of warranty.

    Summary

    The administratrix of an estate brought a wrongful death action against several defendants, including the manufacturer of a scaffold, based on both negligence and breach of warranty. The plaintiff served interrogatories seeking information about the scaffold’s manufacturing and testing. The lower courts set aside the interrogatories based on CPLR 3130, which prohibits interrogatories in wrongful death actions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statutory prohibition applies regardless of the legal theory underlying the wrongful death claim, acknowledging potential inconsistencies and suggesting legislative reconsideration.

    Facts

    Clement Heath Allen, a window washer, died after a scaffold he was using on a building’s roof tipped over, causing him to fall 45 stories. The scaffold had been installed two weeks prior to the incident. Sydelle Allen, as administratrix, sued the building owners, their managing agent, and the scaffold manufacturer, Spider Staging Sales Company, alleging negligence. A second cause of action asserted breach of express and implied warranties against Spider Staging.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff served written interrogatories upon Spider Staging. Special Term set aside the interrogatories. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, with two justices dissenting. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal based on a certified question regarding the propriety of the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether CPLR 3130 excludes the use of interrogatories in all wrongful death actions, irrespective of whether the action is based on negligence or breach of warranty.

    Holding

    Yes, because CPLR 3130 expressly prohibits the use of interrogatories in actions to recover damages for wrongful death, regardless of the theoretical predicate for liability.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on the legislative history of CPLR 3130, noting the initial proposal to allow interrogatories in all actions was narrowed due to concerns about potential abuse, particularly in negligence and wrongful death cases. The Judicial Conference specifically intended to preclude interrogatories in such actions. Despite recognizing anomalies created by the statute, such as allowing interrogatories for breach of warranty claims in personal injury cases arising from the same accident, the Court adhered to the plain language of the statute. The Court acknowledged the blurring of lines between negligence and breach of warranty in products liability law since the statute’s enactment but emphasized that courts must apply the statute as written. The Court noted, “A statute must be read and given effect as it is written by the Legislature, not as the court may think it should or would have been written if the Legislature had envisaged all the problems and complications which might arise in the course of its administration.” Because the legislature has proscribed the use of interrogatories in wrongful death actions, the court below properly set aside the interrogatories. The court suggested that the Legislature reconsider the statute in light of evolving products liability law.

  • Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403 (1968): Scope of Discovery Under CPLR 3101

    Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403 (1968)

    CPLR 3101 should be liberally interpreted to permit discovery of any facts bearing on the controversy that will assist in trial preparation by sharpening the issues and reducing delay.

    Summary

    Former employees of Crowell-Collier Publishing sued for severance and retirement pay, claiming the company had a policy of making such payments upon termination. They sought information on the company’s practices regarding severance and retirement pay at all its locations, as well as information on collective bargaining agreements and general publishing industry practices. The defendant sought to strike most of the interrogatories. The Court of Appeals held that the information sought was material and necessary to the prosecution of the plaintiffs’ action and should be disclosed. The Court emphasized a broad interpretation of CPLR 3101 to facilitate trial preparation and ascertain the truth.

    Facts

    Plaintiffs, former employees of Crowell-Collier Publishing’s Springfield, Ohio plant, were discharged when the company suspended publication of two magazines. They sued for severance and retirement pay, alleging that the company had an established policy of providing such payments upon termination, which they relied upon when starting or continuing their employment.

    Procedural History

    Plaintiffs submitted interrogatories to the defendant seeking information about severance and retirement pay practices at all of the defendant’s plants and offices. The defendant moved to strike most of the interrogatories as immaterial. Special Term granted the defendant’s motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the information sought by the plaintiffs in their interrogatories, pertaining to the defendant’s severance and retirement pay practices at locations other than the Springfield plant, collective bargaining agreements, and general publishing industry practices, is “material and necessary” to the prosecution of their action under CPLR 3101.

    Holding

    No, because the words “material and necessary” in CPLR 3101 are to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court held that the scope of discovery under CPLR 3101 should be broad and liberally construed. The test is one of usefulness and reason; the inquiry should be “sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make the effort to obtain it in preparation for trial reasonable.” The Court emphasized that the purpose of disclosure is to ascertain the truth and accelerate the disposition of suits. “If there is any possibility that the information is sought in good faith for possible use as evidence-in-chief or in rebuttal or for cross-examination, it should be considered ‘evidence material * * in the prosecution or defense’.” The court rejected the defendant’s argument that disclosure should be limited to evidence directly related to issues raised by the pleadings, specifically, information about practices at the Springfield plant. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs alleged a company-wide policy and practice, and information about other locations could support their assertion that the policy was also in effect at their place of employment. As the dissenting justices in the Appellate Division observed, “The point is not whether plaintiffs relied on the policy in effect at other locations, but whether the fact that it was in effect at the other locations will not lend support to plaintiffs’ assertion that it was also in effect at the location at which they were employed.”