Schwingle v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwingle v. State

25 A.D.2d 789, 269 N.Y.S.2d 382

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

DecidedApril 29, 1966

DocketClaim No. 40117

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 789 (Schwingle v. State) 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

Schwingle v. State, 25 A.D.2d 789, 269 N.Y.S.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from judgment dismissing a negligence claim. The claimant on November 7, 1960 at approximately 8:00 a.m. on a dear day, the road dry and bare, entered a two-lane blacktop surface bridge which was covered with a transparent sheet of iec; the automobile went into a spin, struck the bridge girder and the claimant was injured. The claimant charged negligence on the part of the State for failure to sand or salt the bridge floor and failing to have an appropriate warning sign. We And no reason to modify the principles expressed in Knowles v. State (20 A D 2d 738). We find it applicable to the present facts and accordingly it is controlling and decisive. Judgment affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from judgment dismissing a negligence claim. The claimant on November 7, 1960 at approximately 8:00 a.m. on a dear day, the road dry and bare, entered a two-lane blacktop surface bridge which was covered with a transparent sheet of iec; the automobile went into a spin, struck the bridge girder and the claimant was injured. The claimant charged negligence on the part of the State for failure to sand or salt the bridge floor and failing to have an appropriate warning sign. We And no reason to modify the principles expressed in Knowles v. State (20 A D 2d 738). We find it applicable to the present facts and accordingly it is controlling and decisive. Judgment affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 789, 269 N.Y.S.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwingle-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.