Carvel v. Underwood

New York Supreme Court

Carvel v. Underwood

51 Misc. 2d 863, 273 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1419

DecidedOctober 19, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 51 Misc. 2d 863 (Carvel v. Underwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carvel v. Underwood, 51 Misc. 2d 863, 273 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1419 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellsworth N. Lawrence, J.

This is a motion to set aside a verdict of no cause of action upon the usual grounds.

The evidence submitted was sufficient to enable the jury to return a verdict for either party. •

The defendant, however, by answer had raised the affirmative defense that the accident was “inevitable or unavoidable”. There was no motion to strike this affirmative defense.

At the request of the defendant, following the principal charge, I instructed the jury in substance that if the jury found that the accident was unavoidable, they should return a verdict of no cause of action. The plaintiff excepted.

The facts were that the infant plaintiff ran between parked cars which were waiting for a change in the traffic light. He ran into the opposite lane of traffic which had just started to move. Having almost reached the opposite curb, he stopped. Possibly he stopped because one of his young friends yelled at him; possibly because he suddenly became aware of the oncoming defendant’s car. In any event the time element was extremely short.

From the cases submitted by counsel, it seems clear that the law of New York is-that accidents may be regarded as unavoidable when not occasioned in any degree either remotely or directly, by the want of such care or skill as the law holds every man bound to exercise.” (Dygert v. Bradley, 8 Wend. 469, 473.) Obviously this can occur only in the- absence of negligence. (Dorn v. Butts, 46 Misc 2d 953.) Under the circumstances here (cf. Buchanan v. Smith, 5 A D 2d 950), particularly the time element, I do not feel that the charge was inappropriate.

The motion is therefore denied.

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

Ellsworth N. Lawrence, J.

This is a motion to set aside a verdict of no cause of action upon the usual grounds.

The evidence submitted was sufficient to enable the jury to return a verdict for either party. •

The defendant, however, by answer had raised the affirmative defense that the accident was “inevitable or unavoidable”. There was no motion to strike this affirmative defense.

At the request of the defendant, following the principal charge, I instructed the jury in substance that if the jury found that the accident was unavoidable, they should return a verdict of no cause of action. The plaintiff excepted.

The facts were that the infant plaintiff ran between parked cars which were waiting for a change in the traffic light. He ran into the opposite lane of traffic which had just started to move. Having almost reached the opposite curb, he stopped. Possibly he stopped because one of his young friends yelled at him; possibly because he suddenly became aware of the oncoming defendant’s car. In any event the time element was extremely short.

From the cases submitted by counsel, it seems clear that the law of New York is-that accidents may be regarded as unavoidable when not occasioned in any degree either remotely or directly, by the want of such care or skill as the law holds every man bound to exercise.” (Dygert v. Bradley, 8 Wend. 469, 473.) Obviously this can occur only in the- absence of negligence. (Dorn v. Butts, 46 Misc 2d 953.) Under the circumstances here (cf. Buchanan v. Smith, 5 A D 2d 950), particularly the time element, I do not feel that the charge was inappropriate.

The motion is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Misc. 2d 863, 273 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carvel-v-underwood-nysupct-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack