Blixton v. MacNary
| Decision Date | 15 February 1965 |
| Citation | 256 N.Y.S.2d 362,23 A.D.2d 573 |
| Parties | George J. BLIXTON, Respondent, v. Allan R. MacNARY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Raymond H. Bradford, Newburgh, for appellant.
Daniel Becker, Newburgh, for respondent.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and CHRIST, HILL, RABIN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated May 20, 1964, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of the damages.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied.
The facts are not in dispute. At about 5:30 P.M. on February 2, 1963, plaintiff was proceeding in his vehicle in a northerly direction on River Road, Newburgh, New York, a two lane blacktop road. The surface of the road was 'icy.' As plaintiff approached a curve in the road, he saw the bright headlights of defendant's car coming argound the turn, about 40 to 50 feet ahead. It was traveling on the same side of the road as was plaintiff. Plaintiff stepped on the vehicle's brakes but did not turn his wheel. In a 'matter of seconds' the vehicles collided head on. There was proof offered by plaintiff that, immediately after the accident occurred, defendant told him Defendant, however, states that he has no recollection of the events leading up to the accident or of the accident itself.
On a motion for summary judgment in an action of this type, even where there is no dispute as to the physical facts or a claim of contributory negligence, an issue remains as to whether reasonable precautions were used by plaintiff to avoid the accident, and this question is essentially one of fact (Gerard v. Inglese, 11 A.D.2d 381, 206 N.Y.S.2d 879). The mere fact that defendant's vehicle was on the wrong side of the road does not constitute negligence as a matter of law (Gale v. City of New York, 18 A.D.2d 12, 238 N.Y.S.2d 135).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andre v. Pomeroy
...A.D.2d 829, 292 N.Y.S.2d 570 (defendant, looking at traffic light in distance, hit plaintiff's car in rear); cf. Blixton v. MacNary, 23 A.D.2d 573, 574, 256 N.Y.S.2d 362, 363 (defendant, who admitted fault, driving on wrong side of road, collided head-on with plaintiff's car); Cicero v. Cla......
-
Hartwig v. Three F. Conservation Co., Inc.
...been slow to grant motions for summary judgment (Wagner v. Orlando, 25 N.Y.2d 724, 307 N.Y.S.2d 227, 255 N.E.2d 566; Blixton v. MacNary, 23 A.D.2d 573, 256 N.Y.S.2d 362; Cooper v. Greyhound Bus Corp., 13 A.D.2d 173, 215 N.Y.S.2d 281), but have done so where the opposing party has completely......
- Balzano v. Port of New York Authority
-
Whitely v. Lobue
...still left with the inquiry 'as to whether reasonable precautions were used by plaintiff to avoid the accident' (Blixton v. MacNary, 23 A.D.2d 573, 574, 256 N.Y.S.2d 362, 363) and a negative answer would defeat his application, even if not those of the six and seven year olds who were At th......