Humphrey v. State

• Decision Date: 18 October 1983
• Docket Number: No. 61839,61839
• Citation: Humphrey v. State, 469 N.Y.S.2d 661, 60 N.Y.2d 742, 457 N.E.2d 767 (N.Y. 1983)
• Parties: , 457 N.E.2d 767 Carla HUMPHREY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel J. Humphrey, Deceased, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim) Court of Appeals of New York
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 661

469 N.Y.S.2d 661

60 N.Y.2d 742, 457 N.E.2d 767

Carla HUMPHREY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel J Humphrey, Deceased, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 61839.) Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 18, 1983.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Michael S. Buskus and Peter H. Schiff, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for appellant.

Robert Miller, New York City and Gerald A. Keene, Elmira, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 90 A.D.2d 901, 456 N.Y.S.2d 861, should be affirmed, with costs.

Decedent died instantly in an unwitnessed one-vehicle accident on a dead-end segment of old Route 7 in Broome County just after midnight on November 2, 1977. The Court of Claims found that the State was negligent in failing to give adequate, unambiguous warnings of conditions on that highway, and that the State's negligence contributed to decedent's fatal accident. Liability was assigned 60% to the State and 40% to decedent. That judgment was affirmed on appeal.

In a case such as this, with affirmed findings of fact, our scope of review is narrow. This court is without power to review findings of fact if such findings are supported by evidence in the record.

There is ample evidence in the record that the State was negligent in several respects, including (1) failing to cover a "Route 7" sign after the Route 7 turnoff, (2) failing to remove the double line from the center of the dead-end segment on which decedent's accident occurred, and (3) improperly constructing and marking the barrier at the end of that dead-end segment.

While there was evidence that decedent had a .17% blood alcohol level at the time of his death and that this alcohol impairment played a role in decedent's failure to respond to warning signs, the Court of Claims found that the State's negligence was a proximate cause of decedent's accident, and this finding was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

In view of the lower burden of proof imposed on claimants in wrongful death cases (Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 80 N.E.2d 744) and the fact that the evidence as to both negligence and proximate cause must be viewed in a light favorable to claimant (Wragge v. Lizza Asphalt Constr. Co., 17 N.Y.2d 313, 270 N.Y.S.2d 616, 217 N.E.2d 666), there is plainly evidence in this record to support the findings of the courts below. Findings of fact as to negligence and proximate cause were affirmed by the Appellate...