Hague v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 298 N.Y. 206 (1948)

A person is not necessarily contributorily negligent when attempting to protect their property from damage, provided they exercise reasonable care for their own safety; the reasonableness of their actions is a question of fact for the jury.

Summary

Hague, a truck driver, sustained injuries when he tried to prevent further damage to his truck after it was initially struck by a bus. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal, holding that it was a jury question whether Hague acted reasonably in attempting to protect his property and whether the bus driver was negligent. The court emphasized that individuals can take prudent measures to safeguard their property, but the reasonableness of those measures, including the risks taken, should be assessed by a jury based on the specific circumstances.

Facts

Hague, a newspaper delivery driver, parked his truck partially in a bus stop zone. A bus, owned by Standard Oil and driven by its agent, scraped Hague’s truck. Hague, fearing further damage, opened his truck door and leaned out to warn the bus driver, who was attempting to maneuver around another bus. While Hague was warning the driver, the bus continued forward, crushing Hague’s head between the truck door and the truck’s frame, causing injuries. Hague testified he feared his truck would be “smashed up” if he didn’t intervene.

Procedural History

Hague sued Standard Oil, alleging negligence. The jury found in favor of Hague. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding Hague contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Hague appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Hague was contributorily negligent as a matter of law by attempting to prevent further damage to his truck.
2. Whether the defendant’s bus driver’s conduct met the standard of care required under the circumstances, presenting a question of fact for the jury.

Holding

1. No, because whether Hague’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
2. Yes, because the evidence regarding the bus driver’s operation presented a question of fact as to whether the standard of care was met.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the circumstances did not permit a single inference regarding negligence, thus precluding a determination as a matter of law. The court cited Wasmer v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., holding that Hague had the right to protect his property, provided he exercised reasonable care for his own safety. The court emphasized that it was the jury’s role to determine if Hague’s actions were prudent under the circumstances. Quoting Wardrop v. Santi Moving & Express Co., the court stated, “Was the act resulting in the injury reasonable under all the circumstances? Was the end to be gained fairly commensurate with the risks incurred?” The court acknowledged that more risks may be taken to protect life than property, but a reasonable effort can still be made to protect property. The court found that the bus driver’s conduct, which remained unexplained since the driver was not called as a witness, also presented a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the appropriate standard of care was met. The court found that given the factual questions regarding the reasonableness of both parties’ actions, the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the complaint.