White v. State

18 Misc. 2d 441, 188 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3374
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedJune 30, 1959
DocketClaim No. 32813; Claim No. 33778; Claim No. 33779; Claim No. 33780; Claim No. 33781; Claim No. 33875
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 Misc. 2d 441 (White v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
White v. State, 18 Misc. 2d 441, 188 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3374 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Opinion

Sidney Squire, J.

These six claims were tried together in Utica for four days and in Albany on a fifth day. At the opening of the trial, it was stipulated by counsel that the six claims be tried together; that one decision be rendered setting [443]*443forth the respective determinations of each claim and that separate judgments be entered thereon. Eventually, it was further agreed that every party hereto waives the submission of proposed decisions containing proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law. The cases were finally submitted to this court on June 22, 1959.

The claims are predicated on the defendant’s alleged negligence in the .construction and maintenance of State highway Route No. 3, between Cranberry Lake and Star Lake, St. Lawrence County. The defendant had constructed said highway in 1926 and maintained it on July 9, 1954 and prior thereto.

On said date a little before 9:00 a.m., claimants Joseph W. White and his wife, Rena White, were riding in an automobile owned and operated by the husband, in a westerly direction from Star Lake toward Cranberry Lake. At the same time, claimants Delwin Moore Stevens and Luana P. Stevens (husband and wife), were in another motor vehicle with their five infant children, Shireen, Delwin Partridge, Marilyn Kay, Susan and Clayton. The automobile owned by Mr. and Mrs. Stevens was traveling in an easterly direction from Cranberry Lake towards Star Lake.

Said highway was a two-lane road. Each of said automobiles had been proceeding in their respective lanes. Earlier that morning it had rained intermittently. The rain had ceased but the road was wet.

As Professor Stevens was proceeding at about 40 miles per hour easterly, at a point approximately seven or eight miles east of the Village of Star Lake his automobile approached a curve. About 200 yards west of the beginning of said curve, there was a conventional diamond shaped “curve sign”. Stevens reduced the speed of his vehicle to about 35 miles per hour, going into the ascending curve to his right. As he came to the top of the curve he felt his car move to the left. He applied his brakes and attempted to steer the automobile into the right lane. Although he continued to turn the driving wheel to .the right, the vehicle nevertheless continued to move further into the left lane, colliding there with the front of the White automobile in its own lane, head-on. This occurred at about the fourth guide post from the east on the north side of the highway.

Rena White died instantly. Her husband was painfully injured and his automobile, a 1947 Chevrolet, damaged. Mr. Stevens was pinned behind the steering wheel, Mrs. Stevens was hurt and so were three of their youngsters, Marilyn Kay, four [444]*444years old, Susan, six years of age, and Delwin Partridge Stevens, seven. Their automobile, a 1953 Ford station wagon, owned by the Stevens couple, was wrecked. All of the injured were taken by ambulance to the Clifton-Fine Hospital at Star Lake.

We determine that the defendant is liable to each of the claimants for the resultant damages. None of the claimants was guilty of contributory negligence. In the White death claim, the defendant did not sustain its burden of proving any contributory negligence by the said decedent. None of the passengers had control of the respective vehicles. Nor was any action or inaction on their part responsible for what had happened. The fact that Mrs. Stevens, Susan and Delwin were asleep did not contribute in any way to the occurrence.

On the date at bar, Mr. Stevens was 45 years old, then attending a graduate school at Cornell University for his- Ph.D. degree^ The 1953 Ford station wagon had been purchased in August of that year, and later driven about 8,000 miles. Its brakes, steering equipment and tires were in good condition and the driver was familiar with its operation.

Eoute 3 was 22 feet wide on the straight road and 26 feet wide throughout the greater part of the curve involved. As Stevens was approaching from west to east, the only warning or notice which the State gave him was that he was approaching a curve. Stevens heeded the sign by reducing his speed.

Under the circumstances about to be delineated, the State owed a duty to these two families and others using said highway to provide a road which could be safely traversed by a stranger thereto, as well as to warn those approaching of a dangerous condition compelling speed to be reduced appropriately. There was no warning to Stevens of the type and conditions of the road and curve into which he was proceeding. The State did not notify him of a reduced speed which would be safe. He was given no notice sufficient under the existing circumstances of weather. The improper construction of the road, its inadequate maintenance and affirmative failure to post suitable warnings before entrance into the curve, were as to each, a proximate cause of what happened thereafter on said morning.

This road had been constructed by the State pursuant to section 125 of the Highway Law as then enacted. The plans therefor had been recommended by the State’s Division Engineer on July 15, 1926. There had been no change on any part of the road involved at the time of the occurrence. The photographic exhibits and sketches demonstrate the danger which existed.

Unfortunately, the road had not been. constructed according to the filed plans. It became and was a hazard for those traveling [445]*445eastbound on the curve. There were three coexistent factors which contributed to that result, i.e., the degree of curve, the grade of the road and the bank.

The physical facts were not controverted. Actually, from the beginning of the curve to the right, it had a degree of curvature varying between 9 degrees and 10 degrees until it reached the point of hazard where it suddenly increased to 12 degrees 30 minutes and became greater thereafter.

As for the grade, after a uniform .6% ascending (i.e., 6 foot per 100 feet of length), the ascending grade increased to 1.18%, then changed to .86%, but within 50 feet descended to a .68% grade and within the following 100 feet the descent rate more than doubly increased to 1.56% for 50 feet and up to 3.12% the following 50 feet. This is an increase of about 400% in 150 feet.

The bank in the curve began at 1% inches to 1% inches per foot, was reduced to 1 inch per foot, then to % inch per foot, % inch, % inch and finally level. The reductions of the bank instead of uniformity were. dangerous factors on the curve which Stevens was negotiating, constituting a hazardous condition under the circumstances.

The State’s construction plans for this curve of about 610 feet in length showed a uniform 10-degree rate of curvature, not the sudden * ‘ hooking ’ ’ which actually occurred. According to plans, the ascending grade was to be .6% uniform and should have been connected or tapered by a gradual 100-foot parabolic vertical curve into a gradual uniformly descending grade of 1.5%, not as the actual “curve” and “dip” existed that morning. So too, the plans required a uniform bank of 1% inches per foot of width, not for the actual varying and suddenly vanishing bank, flattening at the point of hazard. The plans had demanded such 100-foot .parabolic vertical curve. It was not constructed. Indeed, the- actual “ curve ” does not conform to a mathematical curve.

The construction of this portion of the road was not in accordance with good and accepted engineering practices and standards when built in 1926.

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

Related

Foley v. State
22 Misc. 2d 1012 (New York State Court of Claims, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Misc. 2d 441, 188 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-nyclaimsct-1959.