From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 22, 1967
28 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

May 22, 1967


Appeal by the claimant from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing an automobile accident claim. This is a death case and while the court found the State of New York negligent in failing to provide adequate warning signs, the decision of the court should be affirmed. It appears that at the top of the hill over which the decedent travelled there was a substantial piece of ice, but it further appears that for a distance estimated to be from 200 to 500 feet in the direction in which the decedent was proceeding, the road was dry and there were no skid marks or other evidence that the ice patch interfered with the operation of the automobile or caused it to go onto the shoulder of the road and then out of control. The claimant introduced into evidence pictures taken at the scene of the accident before the automobiles were moved which showed the road to be clear of ice and snow. The State introduced pictures taken approximately a week subsequent to the accident which showed the general road conditions. The court found: "In the absence of other proof, the Court finds that the unusual action of a car slipping on ice starts immediately after the contact. In this case the car appeared to proceed normally from the ice patch for at least 225 feet and possibly as much as 450 feet before it went off on the shoulder and out of control. * * * The Court finds that the shoulders were well maintained and that the claimant has not established any negligence other than the failure to warn of the ice patch." The exhibits showing the automobiles and the road conditions and the record as a whole do not tend to establish a reasonable connection between the patch of ice and the going upon the shoulder of the road. At least the court was not obligated to make such finding where different inferences of negligence might be drawn from the same facts. ( Boyce Motor Lines v. State of New York, 280 App. Div. 693, 696, affd. 306 N.Y. 801.) As to the exclusion of the testimony of the claimant concerning conversations with the State Police, the record does not establish a basis for the admission of the testimony. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.


Summaries of

Brooker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 22, 1967
28 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Brooker v. State

Case Details

Full title:EVELYN M. BROOKER, as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLES E. BROOKER…

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

Date published: May 22, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)