From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tarrock v. City of Kingston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 14, 1951
279 App. Div. 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

November 14, 1951.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Ulster County.

Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.


Dock Street in the city of Kingston runs closely along the edge of Rondout Creek. The distance between the edge of the pavement and the water's edge is five feet. From the crown of the road to the water's edge is a drop of eleven inches in a distance of sixteen and one-half feet. The city exercises control over the area between the pavement and the water's edge. No guardrail, barrier or other protection existed between the edge of the pavement and the water on February 4, 1949. On that day the street was covered with snow and ice and slippery. Plaintiff's testator's car went over the edge of the bank and into the water and he was drowned. There was some indication from the marks left by the wheels of his car that he had not straightened out after turning into Dock Street from Ravine Street. Whether it was negligence on the part of the city in maintaining a street constructed as this one was with a rather highly pitched crown and close to a stream in this climate without any protection to vehicles turning into or driving along it fairly presents a question of fact and we do not regard the verdict in this respect as against the weight of the evidence. The court properly excluded the testimony of a hematologist as to a "recognized standard" by which intoxication is presumed to occur from the percentage of alcohol found in blood. He was not a physician or otherwise shown qualified from personal experience to be able to give an opinion which a court would accept on this subject, and the court left it open to the appellant to show by competent proof the effect of the alcohol which the hematologist said he found on examining the blood. Such proof was not offered, although a physician who assisted at the post-mortem examination had been a witness. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Tarrock v. City of Kingston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 14, 1951
279 App. Div. 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Tarrock v. City of Kingston

Case Details

Full title:LILLIAN TARROCK, as Executrix of ERNEST TARROCK, Deceased, Respondent, v…

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

Date published: Nov 14, 1951

Citations

279 App. Div. 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

State v. Hart

This, we respectfully submit, is not sufficient." In support of his contention defendant relies on Tarrock v.…

State v. Priester

The issue of what constitutes "appropriate expert testimony" interpreting blood test results has not been…