205 A.D. 697, Clark v. Doolittle

Citation205 A.D. 697
Party NameJ. EDWARD CLARK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DOOLITTLE, Appellant.
Case DateMay 02, 1923
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appelate Division, Fourth Department

Page 697

205 A.D. 697

J. EDWARD CLARK, Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM DOOLITTLE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.

May 2, 1923

APPEAL by the defendant, William Doolittle, from a judgment of the County Court of the county of Oneida in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 13th day of March, 1922, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk's office on the 17th day of March, 1922, denying defendant's motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

COUNSEL

Page 698

H. D. Bailey, for the appellant.

Lewis, Pratt & Fowler [W. R. Pratt of counsel], for the respondent.

DAVIS, J.:

The plaintiff has recovered a judgment for damages to property caused by a collision between the defendant's automobile and the plaintiff's automobile at the intersection of Elm and Eagle streets in the city of Utica on June 25, 1921. The verdict of the jury in plaintiff's favor is based upon evidence sufficient to warrant their finding that the accident was caused by defendant's negligence.

The question raised here requiring our consideration is that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover because his car at the time was being driven by an unlicensed chauffeur.

Todd, the driver of the plaintiff's automobile, was employed as an automobile salesman by plaintiff and paid by a commission on sales. At the time of the collision he was driving the car on an errand for the plaintiff. Evidence of the nature of the errand was excluded on defendant's objection. That he falls within the definition of a 'chauffeur' under section 281 of the Highway Law (added by Laws of 1910, chap. 374, as amd. by Laws of 1917, chap. 769) is, under the evidence, somewhat doubtful. But for the purpose of determining the legal question presented, we may assume that fact. That question is, may a person recover damages caused by the negligence of another when his automobile was injured while being operated in violation of law?

The appellant's counsel contends that we should adopt the rule prevailing in Massachusetts, that a person operating an automobile in violation of a statute is a trespasser upon the highway and cannot recover for any injury to the machine or occupant, unless the injury was caused by some reckless, wanton or willful act. This rule has been applied in Massachusetts to unlicensed motor...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
25 practice notes
  • 102 So. 561 (Miss. 1925), 24581, Hossley v. Union Indemnity Co. of New York
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Enero 1925
    ...and soundness of Judge CARDOZA'S holding: 200 A.D. 780; 194 Supp. 67; 201 A.D. 120; 193 Supp. 914; 204 A.D. 532; 198 Supp. 536; 205 A.D. 699; 199 Supp. 816. The case of Brock v. Travelers Insurance Co., 88 Conn. 308, 91 A. 279, supports the holding of the New York court. Appellant's replica......
  • 105 P.2d 1076 (Idaho 1940), 6697, Maier v. Minidoka County Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 20 Septiembre 1940
    ...of a traffic law must be established as the proximate cause of the injury, the question being one of fact, citing Clark v. Doolittle, 205 A.D. 697, 199 N.Y.S. 814; Martin v. Oregon Stages, 129 Ore. 435, 277 P. 291, 294; asking the pertinent question, 'was the absence of a white light the ap......
  • 242 N.Y. 176, Brown v. Shyne
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 24 Febrero 1926
    ...on the plaintiff when there was no evidence to show that it was the proximate cause of the injury complained of. (Clark v. Doolittle, 205 A.D. 697; Knupfle v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 N.Y. 488; Weinberger v. Kratzenstein, 71 A.D. 155; Hyde v. McCreery, 145 A.D. 729; Silman v. Lewis, 49 N.Y......
  • 193 Misc. 507, 28406, Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • 24 Agosto 1948
    ...to make him a trespasser upon the highway and preclude his recovery of damages caused by the negligence of another. (Clark v. Doolittle, 205 A.D. 697; Hall v. Hepp, Irish v. Hepp, 210 A.D. 149; Audubon Transp. Co. v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 126 Misc. 180.) And, in considering the rights of those......
  • Free signup to view additional results
25 cases
  • 102 So. 561 (Miss. 1925), 24581, Hossley v. Union Indemnity Co. of New York
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Enero 1925
    ...and soundness of Judge CARDOZA'S holding: 200 A.D. 780; 194 Supp. 67; 201 A.D. 120; 193 Supp. 914; 204 A.D. 532; 198 Supp. 536; 205 A.D. 699; 199 Supp. 816. The case of Brock v. Travelers Insurance Co., 88 Conn. 308, 91 A. 279, supports the holding of the New York court. Appellant's replica......
  • 105 P.2d 1076 (Idaho 1940), 6697, Maier v. Minidoka County Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 20 Septiembre 1940
    ...of a traffic law must be established as the proximate cause of the injury, the question being one of fact, citing Clark v. Doolittle, 205 A.D. 697, 199 N.Y.S. 814; Martin v. Oregon Stages, 129 Ore. 435, 277 P. 291, 294; asking the pertinent question, 'was the absence of a white light the ap......
  • 242 N.Y. 176, Brown v. Shyne
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 24 Febrero 1926
    ...on the plaintiff when there was no evidence to show that it was the proximate cause of the injury complained of. (Clark v. Doolittle, 205 A.D. 697; Knupfle v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 N.Y. 488; Weinberger v. Kratzenstein, 71 A.D. 155; Hyde v. McCreery, 145 A.D. 729; Silman v. Lewis, 49 N.Y......
  • 193 Misc. 507, 28406, Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • 24 Agosto 1948
    ...to make him a trespasser upon the highway and preclude his recovery of damages caused by the negligence of another. (Clark v. Doolittle, 205 A.D. 697; Hall v. Hepp, Irish v. Hepp, 210 A.D. 149; Audubon Transp. Co. v. Yonkers R. R. Co., 126 Misc. 180.) And, in considering the rights of those......
  • Free signup to view additional results