Alexander v. Eldred

• Decision Date: 08 March 1984
• Citation: 473 N.Y.S.2d 864,100 A.D.2d 666
• Parties: Scott Lee ALEXANDER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Frank D. ELDRED et al., Respondents-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 864

473 N.Y.S.2d 864

100 A.D.2d 666

Scott Lee ALEXANDER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Frank D. ELDRED et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

March 8, 1984.

Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse (Nancy L. Pontius, Syracuse, of counsel) for respondents-appellants Frank D. Eldred and Terminal Taxi, Inc.

Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove & Hust, Syracuse (Robert A. Small, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent-appellant City of Ithaca.

Faraci, Guadagnino, Lange & Johns, Rochester (Paul K. Lange, Rochester, of

counsel), for appellant-respondent Alexander.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, entered September 15, 1982 in Tompkins County, which set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff rendered at Trial Term, and granted a new trial solely on the issue of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to accept a reduced damage award.

On July 20, 1978, at approximately 10:00 P.M., plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was operating southerly on Stewart Avenue in the City of Ithaca collided with a cab owned by defendant Terminal Taxi, Inc. and operated by defendant Frank D. Eldred. The taxi was proceeding easterly upgrade on Edgecliff Place, a dead-end private street, which terminates at Stewart Avenue and services two private homes, an apartment building and a fraternity house. Stewart Avenue is a winding thoroughfare at the intersection of Edgecliff Place and Thurston Avenue, a side street leading west to Stewart Avenue almost directly across from Edgecliff Place. As a result, there is a limited sight distance at any part of the intersection, but particularly at Edgecliff Place because of its rather severe upgrade. This action by plaintiff is against Terminal Taxi, Inc., its driver, and the City of Ithaca, and defendants have cross-claimed against each other. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $85,000, finding plaintiff free from contributory fault, and apportioning liability of the city at 30% and the taxi cab company and its driver at 70%. Post-trial motions by defendants were denied, except the motion addressed to the excessiveness of the verdict. In its decision, the trial court directed a new trial, limited to the issue of damages, unless plaintiff accepted a verdict reduced to $55,000. From all determinations adverse to them, all parties have appealed.

Our only disagreement with the trial court is with its conclusion that the verdict rendered by the jury was excessive. Plaintiff was 27 years old at the time of the accident and sustained several severe fractures of his metatarsal bones and deep lacerations of his right foot, requiring open reduction and pinning. He was hospitalized for 12 days. Upon being discharged, plaintiff wore a leg cast which necessitated the use of a cane and crutches until January, 1979. Intermittently, he was treated medically until July, 1980. He has permanent shortening of his foot of three eighths of an inch, and thickening and stiffness of the foot, with internal rotation of his big toe and some clawing of other toes, which prevents his participation in volleyball, tennis and skiing, as he did before the accident. His medical expenses were $3,184.43 and he claims delay in seeking employment as an architect. Considering the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, their permanency and pain, a verdict of $85,000 cannot be said to be excessive (see Riddle v. Memorial Hosp., 43 A.D.2d 750, 751, 349 N.Y.S.2d 855).

As to the apportionment of liability among defendants, it is our view that the verdict is amply supported by the evidence. The jury could find that defendant Eldred operated his taxi out onto the main highway from a side street without stopping and maintaining a proper lookout. Additionally, it could consider that Eldred pleaded guilty to a violation of section 1140 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, i.e., a failure to yield the right of way, which is admissible against him on the issue of his negligence (Ando v. Woodberry, 8 N.Y.2d 165, 203 N.Y.S.2d 74, 168 N.E.2d 520).

As to defendant City of Ithaca, this record demonstrates that its failure to post a stop sign on Edgecliff Place constituted negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident in question. Plaintiff's expert, eminently qualified, testified without contradiction that a stop sign should have been present, and that maintenance of the intersection at the accident scene was not in accordance with good, sound and acceptable engineering practice. Of interest is the fact that immediately south of the scene of the accident were signs on each side of Stewart Avenue for vehicles proceeding northerly, indicating "dangerous intersection", and that the city engineer testified that such signs were necessary in his opinion. Accordingly, the absence of similar signs for vehicles proceeding southerly is of major significance on the question of the city's negligence. Furthermore, at the intersection of Stewart Avenue and Thurston Avenue, essentially across from the terminus of Edgecliff Place, the city maintained a stop sign on Thurston Avenue for vehicles proceeding west on Thurston Avenue entering Stewart Avenue. The city attempted to explain the absence of a similar sign on Edgecliff Place due to the fact that it was considered a private road by the city. However, this reasoning is flawed because such a sign is specifically authorized by statute to be erected on a private road when necessary (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1640, subd. [a], par. 1). Moreover, there is a statutory mandate that the city establish and maintain such a sign, as may be necessary, to conform to the requirements of State regulations establishing uniform traffic control devices (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1682; 17 NYCRR 232.1). At the very least, these requirements raise issues of fact as to the negligence of defendant city, and whether such negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The determination of these factual issues is exclusively within the province of the jury (Woodcock v. County of Niagara, 52 A.D.2d 1087, 384 N.Y.S.2d 310; Murphy v. DeRevere, 279 App.Div. 929, 111 N.Y.S.2d 2, affd. 304 N.Y. 922, 110 N.E.2d 740).

Defendant city further contends that, in these circumstances, section 7.10 of the supplement to the Charter of the City of Ithaca (Local Laws, 1974, No. 1 of City of Ithaca) requires written advance notice of any defective condition before the city can be held liable therefor. This contention must be rejected for such provisions apply only to notice of physical defects in streets or sidewalks or other obstructions, and not for failing to establish or maintain signs (Doremus v. Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 N.Y.2d 362, 275 N.Y.S.2d 505, 222 N.E.2d 376; Tully v. Town of North Hempstead, 93 A.D.2d 834, 461 N.Y.S.2d 53; cf. Johnstown...