Lo Giudice v. Riedel
| Decision Date | 07 July 1969 |
| Citation | 303 N.Y.S.2d 756,32 A.D.2d 950 |
| Parties | Frank LO GIUDICE, Appellant, v. Benedict RIEDEL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and BRENNAN, RABIN, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 22, 1968 in favor of defendant, upon the trial court's dismissal of the complaint at the end of plaintiff's case upon a jury trial.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered.
Plaintiff testified that before crossing in the middle of the block he observed defendant's automobile 200 feet away and traveling towards him at approximately 30 miles an hour. The automobile continued at this same rate of speed until it struck plaintiff before he reached the walk on the other side of the street. Plaintiff stated that defendant failed to sound any warnings prior to the accident.
In our opinion, the issues with respect to plaintiff's contributory negligence and defendant's negligence were questions of fact for the jury. We are unable to say that a jury could not properly find that, if defendant had been sufficiently vigilant and careful, he would have seen plaintiff in time to avoid injuring him (see Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N.Y. 349, 352, 15 N.E. 415; Baker v. Close, 204 N.Y. 92, 95, 97 N.E. 501, 502; Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1154). Moreover, the fact that a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle while attempting to cross in the middle of the block will not, of itself, constitute contributory negligence so as to bar his action for personal injuries (see Moebus v. Herrmann, Supra; Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N.Y. 226, 230, 110 N.E. 428, 429; Rettegi v. Gremelsbacker, 29 A.D.2d 650, 287 N.Y.S.2d 345).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. State
...ordinary reasonable care in the operation of an automobile to prevent injury to those lawfully on the highway. LoGiudice v. Riedel, 32 A.D.2d 950, 303 N.Y.S.2d 756; Spinelli v. Licorich, 24 A.D.2d 172, 265 N.Y.S.2d 117; Loeb v. United Traction Co., 24 A.D.2d 917, 264 N.Y.S.2d 571. Since an ......
-
Mittiga v. U.S.
...its duty to operate a motor vehicle with reasonable care under New York statutory and common law. See Lo Giudice v. Riedel, 32 A.D.2d 950, 303 N.Y.S.2d 756 (2d Dep't 1969); Linton v. Forman Family, Inc., 215 N.Y.S.2d 878 (Sup.Ct. Kings County 1961); N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 (McKi......
-
Ruocco v. Mulhall
...the defendant exercised due care to avoid the accident (see, Garner v Fox, 265 A.D.2d 525; Calico v Phillips, 63 A.D.2d 955; Lo Giudice v Riedel, 32 A.D.2d 950; Vehicle and Traffic Law §1146), and whether the injured plaintiff failed to exercise due care in crossing the roadway at a place o......
-
McPartland v. Bitzen
...of the plaintiff. (Wartels v. County Asphalt, Inc., 29 N.Y.2d 372, 379, 328 N.Y.S.2d 410, 415, 278 N.E.2d 627, 631; Lo Giudice v. Riedel, 32 A.D.2d 950, 303 N.Y.S.2d 756; Hogeboom v. Protts, 30 A.D.2d 618, 290 N.Y.S.2d ...