Ritson v. Colossal Transportation Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ritson v. Colossal Transportation Ltd.

30 A.D.2d 614, 290 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3932

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

DecidedMay 21, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 614 (Ritson v. Colossal Transportation Ltd.) 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

Ritson v. Colossal Transportation Ltd., 30 A.D.2d 614, 290 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal by' the defendant corporation from an order of Special Term denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint herein as against it. The action results from an automobile accident which happened when the defendant Maresea traveling north overtook the appellant’s truck on a two-lane highway and as he was passing the truck in the lane for south traffic struck the plaintiff’s south bound ear head-on. At an examination before trial Maresea testified that he made a certain signal with his headlights prior to passing and that the truck driver returned said signal which to Maresea signified that there was no traffic approaching from the opposite direction. The fact of whether or not the alleged signalling actually occurred is for the jury and, if so, whether such act on the part of the driver of the truck constituted negligence. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal by' the defendant corporation from an order of Special Term denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint herein as against it. The action results from an automobile accident which happened when the defendant Maresea traveling north overtook the appellant’s truck on a two-lane highway and as he was passing the truck in the lane for south traffic struck the plaintiff’s south bound ear head-on. At an examination before trial Maresea testified that he made a certain signal with his headlights prior to passing and that the truck driver returned said signal which to Maresea signified that there was no traffic approaching from the opposite direction. The fact of whether or not the alleged signalling actually occurred is for the jury and, if so, whether such act on the part of the driver of the truck constituted negligence. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 614, 290 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritson-v-colossal-transportation-ltd-nyappdiv-1968.