Ross v. Air Farms, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. Air Farms, Inc.

17 Misc. 2d 151, 183 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4366

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 151 (Ross v. Air Farms, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ross v. Air Farms, Inc., 17 Misc. 2d 151, 183 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff conceded that the safe landing of an aircraft is the sole responsibility of the pilot. Here, plaintiff failed to call anyone to check ground cover conditions at the airport on the day of the accident and neglected to obtain information which was available to him. The Liberty Weather Station recorded and reported approximately 13 inches of snow. The Airman’s Guide indicated that the airport was attended in the Summer only. Consequently plaintiff, making the landing on the basis of his own best judgment and plowing into approximately 13 inches of snow was guilty of contributory negligence and was not entitled to recover the damages caused [152]*152to his aircraft. Therefore the award in favor of plaintiff may not be permitted to stand and the judgment should he reversed.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 cogts, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff conceded that the safe landing of an aircraft is the sole responsibility of the pilot. Here, plaintiff failed to call anyone to check ground cover conditions at the airport on the day of the accident and neglected to obtain information which was available to him. The Liberty Weather Station recorded and reported approximately 13 inches of snow. The Airman’s Guide indicated that the airport was attended in the Summer only. Consequently plaintiff, making the landing on the basis of his own best judgment and plowing into approximately 13 inches of snow was guilty of contributory negligence and was not entitled to recover the damages caused [152]*152to his aircraft. Therefore the award in favor of plaintiff may not be permitted to stand and the judgment should he reversed.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 cogts, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 151, 183 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-air-farms-inc-nyappterm-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack