Bobbe v. Camato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bobbe v. Camato

26 A.D.2d 627, 272 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 627 (Bobbe v. Camato) 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

Bobbe v. Camato, 26 A.D.2d 627, 272 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident, defendant Camato appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 30, 1965, in favor of the plaintiffs upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Ho questions of fact have been considered. The record demonstrates that the jury could find that the defendant was confronted with an emergency situation at the time of the accident. Under these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to a charge that, if the jury believed that his driver was faced with an emergency which he did not create, he is not to be held liable if he failed to exercise the best judgment in the emergency (Rowlands v. Parks, 2 N Y 2d 64; Meyer v. Whisnant, 307 N. Y. 369; Lewis v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 52; Breckir v. Lewis, 21 A D 2d 546, affd. sub nom. Breckir v. Pleibel, 15 N Y 2d 1027). We are also of the opinion that it was error to fail to instruct the jury that the injuries received in the accident could be found to be a proximate cause of the death if the medical proof demonstrated that the injuries were a competent producing cause of the death, though not the exclusive cause (Dunham v. Village of Canisteo, 303 N. Y. 498, 504). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident, defendant Camato appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 30, 1965, in favor of the plaintiffs upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Ho questions of fact have been considered. The record demonstrates that the jury could find that the defendant was confronted with an emergency situation at the time of the accident. Under these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to a charge that, if the jury believed that his driver was faced with an emergency which he did not create, he is not to be held liable if he failed to exercise the best judgment in the emergency (Rowlands v. Parks, 2 N Y 2d 64; Meyer v. Whisnant, 307 N. Y. 369; Lewis v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 52; Breckir v. Lewis, 21 A D 2d 546, affd. sub nom. Breckir v. Pleibel, 15 N Y 2d 1027). We are also of the opinion that it was error to fail to instruct the jury that the injuries received in the accident could be found to be a proximate cause of the death if the medical proof demonstrated that the injuries were a competent producing cause of the death, though not the exclusive cause (Dunham v. Village of Canisteo, 303 N. Y. 498, 504). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 627, 272 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobbe-v-camato-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack