Vadala v. Carroll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vadala v. Carroll

91 A.D.2d 865, 458 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19780

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 865 (Vadala v. Carroll) 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

Vadala v. Carroll, 91 A.D.2d 865, 458 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: In this automobile negligence action, the defendant appeals from an order of the trial court setting aside a jury verdict of no cause for action. At the trial, plaintiff proved that defendant’s automobile crossed over the center of the road and struck the plaintiff’s automobile head on. Defendant explained that the roadway was lightly covered with snow and as he was approaching a curve at approximately 35 miles per hour, he applied his brakes and skidded into plaintiff’s lane. Based on this evidence, the question of defendant’s negligence was within the province of the jury. Evidence of skidding out of control is only prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the driver; it does not mandate a finding of negligence. Such evidence together with the explanation given by the driver, presents factual questions for determination by the jury (Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132,135; Noia v De Rosa, 78 AD2d 789, 790, affd 54 NY2d 631; Fagle v Bell, 65 AD2d 887, 888; Knise v Shearer, 30 AD2d 741, 742). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — negligence — new trial.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: In this automobile negligence action, the defendant appeals from an order of the trial court setting aside a jury verdict of no cause for action. At the trial, plaintiff proved that defendant’s automobile crossed over the center of the road and struck the plaintiff’s automobile head on. Defendant explained that the roadway was lightly covered with snow and as he was approaching a curve at approximately 35 miles per hour, he applied his brakes and skidded into plaintiff’s lane. Based on this evidence, the question of defendant’s negligence was within the province of the jury. Evidence of skidding out of control is only prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the driver; it does not mandate a finding of negligence. Such evidence together with the explanation given by the driver, presents factual questions for determination by the jury (Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132,135; Noia v De Rosa, 78 AD2d 789, 790, affd 54 NY2d 631; Fagle v Bell, 65 AD2d 887, 888; Knise v Shearer, 30 AD2d 741, 742). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — negligence — new trial.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 865, 458 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vadala-v-carroll-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack