Murphy v. De Revere
This text of 279 A.D. 929 (Murphy v. De Revere) 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.
Opinion
When the village ordained Croton Avenue as a main artery of travel pursuant to the authority contained in subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the statute imposed on it the duty to erect and maintain a “stop” sign on Brookville Avenue near the intersection, and a failure properly to maintain the sign gives rise to a tort liability. It was a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the failure properly to maintain the sign was one of the proximate causes of the accident. (Nuss v. State of New York, 301 N. Y. 768; Foley v. State of New [930]*930York, 294 N. Y. 275.) The verdict in favor of plaintiff Mae Murphy is excessive. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
279 A.D. 929, 111 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-de-revere-nyappdiv-1952.