Harvey v. New York State Thruway Authority

59 Misc. 2d 1079, 301 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1387
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedJune 17, 1968
DocketClaim No. 44828; Claim No. 44801
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 Misc. 2d 1079 (Harvey v. New York State Thruway Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harvey v. New York State Thruway Authority, 59 Misc. 2d 1079, 301 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1387 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1968).

Opinion

John Carroll Young, J.

The above claims which arose out of an accident which occurred on November 3,1964 and allegedly caused by negligence of the State of New York, were duly and timely filed.

On November 3, 1964, the above-named Max W. Harvey, now deceased, was an employee of claimant Gene Adams Refrigerated Trucking Service, Inc., for which corporation he had been employed about 12 years; the proof showed that he was thorough and efficient and that his work habits were “ ideal ”.

On said date at about 11:00 p.m., he was operating a tractor trailer owned by said corporation and upon its business, in an easterly direction on the New York State Thruway between the City of Buffalo and the City of Syracuse, N. Y. Except for the existence of a combination of smoke and fog, hereinafter referred to as “ smog ”, which existed at the location hereinafter mentioned, the weather was clear; the pavement was dry.

The proof showed that in the area of the so-called Montezuma Swamp through which the Thruway extends and approximately in the area between mileposts 313, 314, 315 and 316 (the mileposts being numbered upward from east to west, milepost 316 was furtherest west) there had existed at various points from time to time for a period of about two weeks prior to November 3, 1964, a mixture of smoke and heavy fog called a “ smog ” condition which at times had been so severe and the smog so dense that on Saturday, October 17,1964, maintenance men were called out at 9:30 p.m. to set out pot flares between mileposts 316 and 312; at first these flares were set out spaced at various distances along the shoulder of the highway, but this proved to be an unsafe practice; thereafter, a system was adopted whereby the flares were set out in clear areas preceding the smog areas.

On Sunday, October 18,1964, at milepost 314.4, the smog was so dense that a maintenance truck operated by Thruway employees sent out to ‘ ‘ patrol ’ ’ the smog area and to set out warning flares, at 2:30 a.m. had collided at milepost 314:4 with another vehicle, striking the car in the rear.

Considerable proof was introduced from the work records or maintenance diary of the New York State Thruway and the testimony of the supervisor of the section of the Thruway in [1081]*1081which the accident out of which this claim arose occurred, showing the extent and nature of the efforts made by the maintenance workers to protect the persons traveling on the Thruway from the dangers presented by the smog condition; this proof showed that periodically over more than two weeks prior to November 3, 1964, smog conditions existed from time to time wherein the visibility on the Thruway between mileposts 313 and 316 was practically zero, enveloping the area in banks of smog, with alternately clear areas intervening between impenetrable clouds, wherein any objects more than three feet distant were indiscernible; the proof also showed that these maintennance men and those in supervisory capacity were called out at night at various times while off duty and at their homes, to perform such work. Their procedure was to place the pot flares when needed and to remove them as soon as the smog dissipated and the need for them ended.

Although there were periods of time when no smog was present, the condition had 'become so commonplace that on November 2,1964 two refleetorized warning signs each four feet high and six feet wide, suspended on “A” type frames, were placed across from each other facing eastbound traffic on each side of the eastbound lanes about at milepost 316.7, one on the south shoulder of the eastbound driving lane and one on the mall to the left of the eastbound passing lane. The legend on each sign which read in capital letters:

REDUCE SPEED
SMOG AHEAD

consisted of white letters on refleetorized plywood, the letters in the words “ REDUCE SPEED ” being six inches high and the letters in the words “ SMOG AHEAD ” being 10 inches high; in front of and beneath each sign were placed foyr kerosene pot flares.

However, these signs facing eastbound traffic placed at- milepost 316.7 were located two miles west of the point where the accident occurred and in this intervening distance of two miles no warning of any kind whatsoever was posted or located.

A pair of similar signs facing westbound traffic was placed on both sides of the westbound lanes at milepost 312.4.

On November 3, 1964, the day of this accident, which was election day, only one maintenance man was on regular maintenance patrol in the area and this was only from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., no other maintenance man was on duty all that day [1082]*1082from 10:30 a.m. until the accident occurred which was approximately 11:00 p.m.

Said Max W. Harvey had left Buffalo at about 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 1964 to make the run to Syracuse, intending to make the return trip to Buffalo and to arrive back at his home in Tonawanda, New York about 8:00 a.m. on November 4, 1964. He had operated this same ‘ ‘ run ’ ’ from Buffalo to Syracuse and return daily or nightly Monday through Friday for about five years immediately prior to November 3, 1964.

Claimant produced as a witness one Leffingwell, who testified that he was driving a tractor trailer outfit easterly on the Thruway on the night of November 3, 1964 and that at a point approximately 10 to 15 miles west of milepost 314, he passed the tractor trailer operated by Mr. Harvey, which was also proceeding in the same direction, and that Mr. Harvey was then operating at a speed of about 55 to 60 miles per hour; the maximum lawful speed was 65 miles per hour. Another witness, one Kessler, the owner and operator of another eastbound tractor trailer outfit and also produced as a witness by claimant, stated that at a point about 3/5 of a mile west of milepost 316, Mr. Harvey’s outfit passed him at a speed which he estimated at 60 miles per hour. From a certain photograph received in evidence herein, Mr. Kessler was able to state that the point where Harvey passed him was a short distance east of where the two signs facing eastbound traffic and bearing the message “REDUCE SPEED SMOG AHEAD ” are shown in this exhibit. Kessler testified, however, that on the night in question he did not observe the signs that are shown in this photograph.

From the testimony of Leffingwell, it appears that after observing the signs, he reduced his speed to about 40 miles per hour and after encountering the smog he reduced his speed to about five miles per hour; that the smog was so impenetrable he was able to drive his tractor trailer only by thrusting his head out of the window of his tractor and guiding it by its relation to the white lines painted on the pavement. This witness stated that after proceeding in this manner a distance which he estimated as about half a mile, he had just withdrawn his head into his cab when his trailer was struck in the rear by the tractor trailer outfit operated by Mr. Harvey, with such force as to demolish the tractor driven by Mr. Harvey, to cause substantial damage to the couplings between it and its trailer, and to damage the Leffingwell equipment forcing it ahead and causing it to “ jackknife ” partially off the right side of the eastbound driving lane of the Thruway.

[1083]

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

Related

Drake v. State
97 Misc. 2d 1015 (New York State Court of Claims, 1979)
Santana v. New York State Thruway Authority
92 Misc. 2d 1 (New York State Court of Claims, 1977)
Rindfleisch v. State
59 Misc. 2d 1074 (New York State Court of Claims, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Misc. 2d 1079, 301 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-new-york-state-thruway-authority-nyclaimsct-1968.