Adsit v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adsit v. State

55 A.D.2d 1008, 391 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10335

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1977

DocketClaim No. 54806

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 1008 (Adsit v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adsit v. State, 55 A.D.2d 1008, 391 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Claimant was injured while operating a snowmobile on the frozen surface of Oneida Lake on January 16, 1972 at about 11:00 p.m. on a dark, moonless night. He was driving about 20 miles per hour, his headlights gave him a visibility of 25 to 30 yards and he needed 25 to 30 yards to stop. He was preceded by another snowmobile which flipped when it struck an unlighted buoy that was attached to an anchor chain and projected up through the ice in the lake. In trying to avoid that snowmobile, claimant sideswiped the buoy and injured his leg. His conduct fell below the standard to which he should have conformed for his own protection (Hunt v Schultz, 21 AD2d 743) and the trial court could fairly interpret the evidence so as to conclude that he violated the dictates of ordinary prudence and was guilty of contributory negligence (cf. Halstead v Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., 36 AD2d 1005, affd 31 NY2d 901). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims— negligence.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Claimant was injured while operating a snowmobile on the frozen surface of Oneida Lake on January 16, 1972 at about 11:00 p.m. on a dark, moonless night. He was driving about 20 miles per hour, his headlights gave him a visibility of 25 to 30 yards and he needed 25 to 30 yards to stop. He was preceded by another snowmobile which flipped when it struck an unlighted buoy that was attached to an anchor chain and projected up through the ice in the lake. In trying to avoid that snowmobile, claimant sideswiped the buoy and injured his leg. His conduct fell below the standard to which he should have conformed for his own protection (Hunt v Schultz, 21 AD2d 743) and the trial court could fairly interpret the evidence so as to conclude that he violated the dictates of ordinary prudence and was guilty of contributory negligence (cf. Halstead v Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., 36 AD2d 1005, affd 31 NY2d 901). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims— negligence.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 1008, 391 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adsit-v-state-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack