From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 11, 1951
278 App. Div. 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Summary

In Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher (278 App. Div. 1017) in a similar proceeding the court said: "The statement by the referee made later, in the form of a question, `You were drowsy, felt yourself getting drowsy, and tried to fight it off?', although answered by petitioner, `I guess that's what happened', is not sufficient to establish proof of reckless driving.

Summary of this case from Matter of Beatty v. Kelly

Opinion

July 11, 1951.

Present — Taylor, P.J., McCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.


Determination annulled on the law and respondent directed to restore petitioner's license, with $50 costs and disbursements to petitioner. Memorandum: In Matter of Jenson v. Fletcher ( 277 App. Div. 454), we held that an operator's license may not be revoked when the only evidence as to the cause of an accident was that the operator "momentarily dozed at the wheel." In this case respondent urges that there is proof that petitioner knew or should have known that he was about to fall asleep. The statement that petitioner worked until midnight the day before the accident and all day on Sunday, the day of the accident, was made by counsel and was not evidence. Even if he had worked long hours on Saturday, petitioner testified he did not open his store on Sunday until 9:30 or 10:00 A.M., so he had ample opportunity to have had sufficient sleep. When asked by the referee: "Why didn't you stop your car or open your windows?", petitioner answered: "I just didn't realize I was getting that way". The statement by the referee made later, in the form of a question, "You were drowsy, felt yourself getting drowsy, and tried to fight it off?", although answered by petitioner, "I guess that's what happened", is not sufficient to establish proof of reckless driving. We said in the Jenson case ( supra, p. 459): "The Legislature may extend the authority to revoke or suspend an operator's license to a case where the driver involuntarily falls asleep while driving." Until the Legislature takes such action, there must be something more shown than we have here to sustain a revocation of license on the ground of "reckless driving" or "gross negligence." All concur. (Review of a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles revoking petitioner's driver's license.)


Summaries of

Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 11, 1951
278 App. Div. 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

In Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher (278 App. Div. 1017) in a similar proceeding the court said: "The statement by the referee made later, in the form of a question, `You were drowsy, felt yourself getting drowsy, and tried to fight it off?', although answered by petitioner, `I guess that's what happened', is not sufficient to establish proof of reckless driving.

Summary of this case from Matter of Beatty v. Kelly

In Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher (278 App. Div. 1017), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that there was insufficient evidence to warrant revocation of the motorist's license, inasmuch as he fell asleep involuntarily and made an effort to fight off sleep.

Summary of this case from Martin v. Koehler
Case details for

Matter of Crawford v. Fletcher

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAMES W. CRAWFORD, Petitioner, against CLIFFORD J…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 11, 1951

Citations

278 App. Div. 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Pask v. Hults

In Matter of Karp v. Hults ( 9 N.Y.2d 857), the court affirmed a finding that petitioner "by his failure to…

Matter of Tyson v. MacDuff

Petitioner's license was suspended because he was involved in a collision with a light pole when he fell…