Darling v. State

New York Court of Appeals

Darling v. State

16 N.Y.2d 907

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 1965

DocketClaim No. 34041

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.Y.2d 907 (Darling v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darling v. State, 16 N.Y.2d 907 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed and claim dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the manner in which the automobile was being operated at the time, and not the presence of the utility pole in the grassy area of the shoulder of the highway, was the proximate producing cause of the accident (Ellis v. State of New York, 16 A D 2d 727, affd. 12 N Y 2d 770; Kinne v. State of New York, 8 A D 2d 903, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1068).

Concur: Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan. Chief Judge Desmond dissents and votes to affirm on these grounds: first, that, on this record, it was a question of fact, not law, as to whether the presence of the pole on the shoulder so near the travelled way was one of the proximate causes of the accident (Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482; Forte v. City of Albany, 279 N. Y. 416); and, second, that this decision is inconsistent with Darling v. Village of Herkimer (4 N Y 2d 1000) where we necessarily held that it was a question of fact not law whether this very pole was a proximate cause of this accident.

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

Order reversed and claim dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the manner in which the automobile was being operated at the time, and not the presence of the utility pole in the grassy area of the shoulder of the highway, was the proximate producing cause of the accident (Ellis v. State of New York, 16 A D 2d 727, affd. 12 N Y 2d 770; Kinne v. State of New York, 8 A D 2d 903, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1068).

Concur: Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan. Chief Judge Desmond dissents and votes to affirm on these grounds: first, that, on this record, it was a question of fact, not law, as to whether the presence of the pole on the shoulder so near the travelled way was one of the proximate causes of the accident (Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482; Forte v. City of Albany, 279 N. Y. 416); and, second, that this decision is inconsistent with Darling v. Village of Herkimer (4 N Y 2d 1000) where we necessarily held that it was a question of fact not law whether this very pole was a proximate cause of this accident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.Y.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darling-v-state-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack