Frushone v. Juliano
| Decision Date | 22 February 1968 |
| Citation | 29 A.D.2d 833,287 N.Y.S.2d 628 |
| Parties | Michael Carl FRUSHONE, by his father Michael S. Frushone, and Michael S. Frushone and Josephine R. Frushone, Appellants, v. Maurine JULIANO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lippa & Morris, Robert S. Moser, Buffalo, for appellants.
Gleason & O'Connor, John J. LaFalce, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before BASTOW, J.P., and GOLDMAN, DEL VECCHIO, WITMER and HENRY, JJ.
This action to recover damages for the alleged negligence of defendant was brought by a husband, his wife, and their infant son. An automobile owned by the husband but operated by the wife in his absence with the five year old son as the sole passenger was struck by defendant's car. The verdict of the jury in favor of defendant was against the weight of the credible evidence. The Frushone vehicle was proceeding in a southerly direction on a public street. Defenant's car was driven out of a private driveway and the operator attempted to make a left turn to proceed in the same direction as the Frushone vehicle that was approaching from defendant's right. The failure of respondent to yield the right of way to Mrs. Frushone was a plain violation of section 1143 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the proximate cause of the accident. It is reasonably clear that the jury was confused and failed to understand the Court's instructions. In view of the negligence of defendant it is impossible to reconcile the findings implicit in the verdict that the five year old infant plaintiff and his father (an absentee owner seeking recovery for damages to his automobile) were contributorily negligent.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted with costs to appellants to abide the event.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geris v. Disilva Taunton Express, Inc.
...in colliding with the plaintiff's automobile, and his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident."); Frushone v. Juliano, 287 N.Y.S.2d 628, 629 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 1968) (failureof defendant to yield the right of way to plaintiff "was a plain violation of section 1143 ... and the pro......
-
Ferrara v. Castro
...a driveway and entered into traffic without yielding. This is a "plain violation" of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143 and 1173 (Frushone v Juliano, 29 A.D.2d 833; see, Palumbo v Holtzer, 235 A.D.2d 409). By entering traffic without yielding as required by law, the defendant driver was neglig......
-
Palumbo v. Holtzer
...814; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184; D'Angelo v. McKendry, 48 A.D.2d 826, 827, 368 N.Y.S.2d 550; Frushone v. Juliano, 29 A.D.2d 833, 287 N.Y.S.2d 628). The court, therefore, providently exercised its discretion in setting aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability ......
-
D'Angelo v. McKendry
...D'Angelo was contributorily negligent was against the weight of the evidence (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1143; cf. Frushone v. Juliano, 29 A.D.2d 833, 287 N.Y.S.2d 628). During the trial, plaintiffs' counsel moved to amend the bill of particulars as to the injuries of plaintiff Rose D'A......