Farrell v. Royal Crown Bottling Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Farrell v. Royal Crown Bottling Co.

420 N.E.2d 967, 53 N.Y.2d 619, 438 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2292

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 420 N.E.2d 967 (Farrell v. Royal Crown Bottling Co.) 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

Farrell v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., 420 N.E.2d 967, 53 N.Y.2d 619, 438 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2292 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to that court for determination of questions of fact.

It cannot be said as a matter of law that no jury could find that in clearing the flatbed from which the unloading was being conducted by so narrow a margin as one foot the driver of the soda truck failed to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances. Similarly, it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that, if the driver were thus found to have been negligent, his negligence was not a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff’s injuries. Inasmuch as the disposition at the Appellate Division was on the law, the case must be remitted to that court pursuant to CPLR 5613.

Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (72 AD2d 531).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to that court for determination of questions of fact.

It cannot be said as a matter of law that no jury could find that in clearing the flatbed from which the unloading was being conducted by so narrow a margin as one foot the driver of the soda truck failed to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances. Similarly, it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that, if the driver were thus found to have been negligent, his negligence was not a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff’s injuries. Inasmuch as the disposition at the Appellate Division was on the law, the case must be remitted to that court pursuant to CPLR 5613.

Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (72 AD2d 531).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 N.E.2d 967, 53 N.Y.2d 619, 438 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-royal-crown-bottling-co-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack