Allenson v. Furman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allenson v. Furman

16 A.D.2d 629, 226 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10254

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

DecidedApril 17, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 629 (Allenson v. Furman) 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

Allenson v. Furman, 16 A.D.2d 629, 226 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, the decision vacated, and the complaint dismissed on the law with costs to defendants-appellants. The sudden and high speed traverse of the highway by the second ear and its coming to rest directly in the path of the ear driven by defendant Furman resulted in an emergency not of his doing and not reasonably to have been anticipated by him. Confronted with the sudden emergency, this defendant was “not obliged to exercise the best judgment” (Rowlands v. Parks, 2 N Y 2d 64, 67.) As a matter of law, bearing in mind the distances between and the speed of the vehicles, and under all the circumstances, the defendant did not have reasonable opportunity for deliberate action to avoid this accident. On the record here, the plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of defendants-appellants. (See Rowlands v. Parks, supra; Meyer v. Whisnant, 307 N. Y. 369; Wolfson v. Darnell, 15 A D 2d 516.) Settle order on notice. Concur •—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, the decision vacated, and the complaint dismissed on the law with costs to defendants-appellants. The sudden and high speed traverse of the highway by the second ear and its coming to rest directly in the path of the ear driven by defendant Furman resulted in an emergency not of his doing and not reasonably to have been anticipated by him. Confronted with the sudden emergency, this defendant was “not obliged to exercise the best judgment” (Rowlands v. Parks, 2 N Y 2d 64, 67.) As a matter of law, bearing in mind the distances between and the speed of the vehicles, and under all the circumstances, the defendant did not have reasonable opportunity for deliberate action to avoid this accident. On the record here, the plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of defendants-appellants. (See Rowlands v. Parks, supra; Meyer v. Whisnant, 307 N. Y. 369; Wolfson v. Darnell, 15 A D 2d 516.) Settle order on notice. Concur •—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 629, 226 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allenson-v-furman-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack