Coury v. Safe Auto Sales, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1973 |
| Citation | 32 N.Y.2d 162,344 N.Y.S.2d 347,297 N.E.2d 88 |
| Parties | , 297 N.E.2d 88 Alexander COURY et al., Appellants, v. SAFE AUTO SALES, INC. et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Charles S. Desmond and Edwin N. Weidman, New York City, for appellants.
William F. McNulty and Anthony J. McNulty, New York City, for respondents.
Infant plaintiff was a passenger in a car which crossed over into the opposing lane of traffic and struck another vehicle. Of the two persons in the car, the driver was killed, and infant plaintiff, who had been asleep at the time of the accident, was injured. Infant plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the car, Safe Auto Sales, Inc., and the estate of the deceased driver.
There were two trials. At the first, the only evidence as to the cause of the accident was the testimony of a driver who had been following the car in which the infant plaintiff was a passenger. He testified that the back end of the car 'moved back and forth' immediately prior to the crossing over of the car into the other lane. The defendant rested without presenting any evidence. The trial court directed a verdict for infant plaintiff, and the Appellate Division, 35 A.D.2d 829, 316 N.Y.S.2d 860, unanimously reversed and granted a new trial. 1 At the second trial, and upon the same evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed.
We conclude that a reversal and new trial are required solely upon the ground that the charge to the jury in the second trial was improper.
The court's charge conveyed to the jury the impression that they could not infer negligence solely from the fact that the car crossed over the center line of the road into the opposing lane of traffic, but that they must affirmatively find from other facts in the case that the defendant acted negligently. This impression was clearly erroneous in light of our decision in Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324, in which we held that a plaintiff could go to the jury solely by demonstrating that the defendant's vehicle crossed over the center line into the opposing lane of traffic. Since a plaintiff is entitled to have his cause of action presented to the jury merely by showing the fact of the crossing over, it follows that the jury is permitted to infer from that fact, and from that fact alone, that the defendant driver was negligent.
The jury should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pretto v. Leiwant
...of her automobile and renders the resulting verdict in her favor contrary to weight of the evidence. (See Coury v. Safe Auto Sales, 32 N.Y.2d 162, 344 N.Y.S.2d 347, 297 N.E.2d 88; Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324; see, also, Cohen v.......
-
Castro v. Klein
...; see Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906, 908, 861 N.Y.S.2d 610, 891 N.E.2d 726 ; see also Coury v. Safe Auto Sales, Inc., 32 N.Y.2d 162, 164, 344 N.Y.S.2d 347, 297 N.E.2d 88 ; Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 135, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324 ).Here, v......
-
Fox v. Lyte
...( see, Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324; see also, Coury v. Safe Auto Sales, 32 N.Y.2d 162, 344 N.Y.S.2d 347, 297 N.E.2d 88). Although the evidence was conflicting as to whether the Lyte vehicle skidded because of the presence of gas......
-
Segal v. Segal
...find him negligent (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Exp. Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115, 216 N.E.2d 324; Coury v. Safe Auto Sales, 32 N.Y.2d 162, 344 N.Y.S.2d 347, 297 N.E.2d 88). Explained, the explanation can be evaluated by the trier of the fact and reasonably accepted to exonerate t......