Shaft v. State

239 A.D. 144, 268 N.Y.S. 160, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7976
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 1933·No. Claim No. 23197·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are not convinced by the proofs that the condition at the edge of the pavement of this highway was a proximate cause of the accident or even that it constituted such [145] a dangerous condition that a finding of negligence on the part of the State can be predicated thereon even though it had existed for a considerable period of time. The Court of Claims has found that the condition of the road at the time and place of the accident was such that it was safe for any one traveling thereon with an ordinary amount of care ” and that the direct and proximate, cause of the accident was the unskillful, careless and negligent manner in which Clark drove his car.” These findings cover the case and the inconsistent findings of negligence on the part of the State to the effect that negligence of the State was a proximate cause of the accident are contrary to and against the weight of the evidence.

All concur.

Judgment reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and claim dismissed. Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed.

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

Shaft v. State, 239 A.D. 144, 268 N.Y.S. 160, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

239 A.D. 144 (Shaft v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth, Department of Highways
479 S.W.2d 603 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1972)
Edwards v. State
5 Misc. 2d 284 (New York State Court of Claims, 1957)
Tucker v. State
178 Misc. 643 (New York State Court of Claims, 1942)
Walker v. State
253 A.D. 226 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)