Goodwin v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Bergmans v. State

    285 App. Div. 989 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    ( Canepa v. State of New York, 306 N.Y. 272; Schnurr v. State of New York, 279 App. Div. 1119, affd. 304 N.Y. 774; Goodwin v. State of New York, 274 App. Div. 824, affd. 298 N.Y. 873; Taylor v. State of New York, 262 App. Div. 657, affd. 288 N.Y. 542.) We vote to reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims and to grant damages to the claimant.

  2. Brown v. State

    284 App. Div. 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)   Cited 3 times

    The State has been held liable in a number of cases under similar circumstances. ( Goodwin v. State of New York, 274 App. Div. 824, affd. 298 N.Y. 873; Taylor v. State of New York, 262 App. Div. 657, affd. 288 N.Y. 542; Schill v. State of New York, 258 App. Div. 769.) Lyra C. Brown was driving the automobile of her husband, Mayo Brown, who was not present in the car, and she was not operating the car for his business or benefit. The lower court has granted judgment in Claim No. 28838 for the stipulated damage to the car, but has dismissed that part of the claim which was for medical and hospital expenses and loss of services of the wife.

  3. Waterman v. State of New York

    24 Misc. 2d 783 (N.Y. Misc. 1960)   Cited 3 times

    He is absolved of any negligence which contributed to this accident. ( Goodwin v. State of New York, 274 App. Div. 824, affd. 298 N.Y. 873.) Beulah M. Webster, 52 years of age at the time of her accident, was survived by the claimant, Leonard E. Webster, and three children.

  4. Naulty v. State of New York

    25 Misc. 2d 76 (N.Y. Misc. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    "The rule to be applied here was aptly stated by Presiding Judge LOUNSBERRY of this court, in Miller v. State of New York ( 201 Misc. 859, 861): `the claimants are relying on the principle that the shoulder of the highway must be maintained in reasonably safe condition for use when occasion requires. Such principle is well established, of course ( Taylor v. State of New York, 288 N.Y. 542; Goodwin v. State of New York, 274 App. Div. 824, affd. 298 N.Y. 873; Sher v. State of New York, 194 Misc. 172), but it is subject to certain limitations and qualifications. In the first place it has been applied only when operation on the shoulder rather than on the pavement was a reasonable recourse by reason of some emergency or special condition. It has never been applied, so far as we can discover, where a driver negligently and without reasonable cause ran off the pavement.