Claim of Emerick v. Dale's Motor Truck Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Emerick v. Dale's Motor Truck Service, Inc.

239 A.D. 231, 267 N.Y.S. 880, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8007

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D. 231 (Claim of Emerick v. Dale's Motor Truck Service, Inc.) 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

Claim of Emerick v. Dale's Motor Truck Service, Inc., 239 A.D. 231, 267 N.Y.S. 880, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinions

Hill, P. J.

As the truck approached the witness Wilcox it was moving in a normal way following a usual course along the highway. [232]*232After deceased fell, it was brought to a normal stop. These facts will sustain a finding that Kelly, the second driver, had moved over into the driver’s seat and that Emerick, to save the time of a stop, was going over the hood to take his place on the right. The circumstances dispute Kelly’s assertion that he was sleeping until just prior to Emerick’s fall. However, an award would be proper in this case if we adopt Kelly’s version that he was sleeping, but it probably would be necessary to remit the case to give the Board opportunity to consider the making of a corresponding finding of fact. When Kelly last saw Emerick he was working, and there is a presumption that he continued. (Norris v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 246 N. Y. 307.) Nothing in Emerick’s conduct indicated an intention to abandon the truck. The fact that his act was highly negligent and careless does not prevent an award.

Rhodes, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; McNamee, J., dissents, with an opinion.

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

Hill, P. J.

As the truck approached the witness Wilcox it was moving in a normal way following a usual course along the highway. [232]*232After deceased fell, it was brought to a normal stop. These facts will sustain a finding that Kelly, the second driver, had moved over into the driver’s seat and that Emerick, to save the time of a stop, was going over the hood to take his place on the right. The circumstances dispute Kelly’s assertion that he was sleeping until just prior to Emerick’s fall. However, an award would be proper in this case if we adopt Kelly’s version that he was sleeping, but it probably would be necessary to remit the case to give the Board opportunity to consider the making of a corresponding finding of fact. When Kelly last saw Emerick he was working, and there is a presumption that he continued. (Norris v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 246 N. Y. 307.) Nothing in Emerick’s conduct indicated an intention to abandon the truck. The fact that his act was highly negligent and careless does not prevent an award.

Rhodes, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; McNamee, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 231, 267 N.Y.S. 880, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-emerick-v-dales-motor-truck-service-inc-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack