Markel v. Broadway Garage

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Markel v. Broadway Garage

111 A.D.2d 151, 488 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51289

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

DecidedMay 6, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 151 (Markel v. Broadway Garage) 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

Markel v. Broadway Garage, 111 A.D.2d 151, 488 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), entered January 27, 1984, which was in favor of defendants, after a jury verdict.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The trial court erred in charging the jury with respect to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 (a), since, as all parties concede, plaintiff Robert Markel was not crossing the street when he was struck by the Edge vehicle. We find, however, that the clear import of the charge and the concept properly conveyed to the jury was that both motorist and pedestrian were required to exercise due care in avoiding a collision. Moreover, the court made it quite clear that, irrespective of a pedestrian’s location in the street, a motorist is required to exercise an overriding duty of care to avoid striking a pedestrian (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1154, since repealed). In light of this, and viewing the charge in its entirety, the error did not affect the result.

Finally, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of defendants. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), entered January 27, 1984, which was in favor of defendants, after a jury verdict.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The trial court erred in charging the jury with respect to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 (a), since, as all parties concede, plaintiff Robert Markel was not crossing the street when he was struck by the Edge vehicle. We find, however, that the clear import of the charge and the concept properly conveyed to the jury was that both motorist and pedestrian were required to exercise due care in avoiding a collision. Moreover, the court made it quite clear that, irrespective of a pedestrian’s location in the street, a motorist is required to exercise an overriding duty of care to avoid striking a pedestrian (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1154, since repealed). In light of this, and viewing the charge in its entirety, the error did not affect the result.

Finally, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of defendants. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 151, 488 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markel-v-broadway-garage-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack