Kutlina v. Yiengst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kutlina v. Yiengst

286 A.D. 922, 141 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516

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

DecidedJune 9, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 922 (Kutlina v. Yiengst) 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

Kutlina v. Yiengst, 286 A.D. 922, 141 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The action involves a collision between two automobiles, one eastbound and the other westbound, upon a four-lane highway. Plaintiff was a passenger in the westbound car. At the time of the collision, the defendant Yiengst was proceeding easterly on the traffic lane nearest the center of the highway. The codefendant’s car came over on to the wrong or south side of the highway and collided head on with appellant’s car. In our opinion, the record fails to disclose any negligent act on the part of appellant that could be termed a negligent causation of the collision. Appellant was confronted with an emergency not of his own creation. Under such circumstances, we believe the position of appellant’s car in the northerly eastbound lane was not a proximate cause of the collision (Meyer v. Whisnant, 282 App. Div. 930, affd. 307 N. Y. 369). Moreover, it is our opinion that the violation, if any, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (§ 81, subd. 26) is not available to the occupants of the westbound car and cannot be urged by plaintiff as a basis of negligence on the part of appellant. All concur, except McCurn, P. J., who concurs as to reversal but votes for granting a new trial. (Appeal from a judgment of Niagara Trial Term for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denied appellant’s motion for a new trial.) Present — Mc-Curn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The action involves a collision between two automobiles, one eastbound and the other westbound, upon a four-lane highway. Plaintiff was a passenger in the westbound car. At the time of the collision, the defendant Yiengst was proceeding easterly on the traffic lane nearest the center of the highway. The codefendant’s car came over on to the wrong or south side of the highway and collided head on with appellant’s car. In our opinion, the record fails to disclose any negligent act on the part of appellant that could be termed a negligent causation of the collision. Appellant was confronted with an emergency not of his own creation. Under such circumstances, we believe the position of appellant’s car in the northerly eastbound lane was not a proximate cause of the collision (Meyer v. Whisnant, 282 App. Div. 930, affd. 307 N. Y. 369). Moreover, it is our opinion that the violation, if any, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (§ 81, subd. 26) is not available to the occupants of the westbound car and cannot be urged by plaintiff as a basis of negligence on the part of appellant. All concur, except McCurn, P. J., who concurs as to reversal but votes for granting a new trial. (Appeal from a judgment of Niagara Trial Term for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denied appellant’s motion for a new trial.) Present — Mc-Curn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 922, 141 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kutlina-v-yiengst-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack