Karrat Bros. & Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1957 |
| Citation | 3 N.Y.2d 993,169 N.Y.S.2d 909 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 147 N.E.2d 477 KARRAT BROS. & CO., Inc., Respondent, v. STATE, Appellant. Frieda KARRAT, Claimant-Respondent, v. STATE, Defendant-Appellant. George KARRAT, an Infant, by Frieda KARRAT, his Guardian ad Litem, Claimant- Respondent, v. STATE, Defendant-Appellant. John KARRAT, Claimant-Respondent, v. STATE, Defendant-Appellant. James RAYA, Claimant-Respondent, v. STATE, Defendant-Appellant. |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 2 A.D.2d 538, 156 N.Y.S.2d 924.
Claim proceedings were brought against the State of New York by corporation, which owned automobile, and by driver and three occupants of automobile for property damage and personal injuries sustained when automobile collided with tree, which had fallen on highway during storm.
The Court of Claims, Fred A. Young, J., 206 Misc. 1025, 136 N.Y.S.2d 304, entered judgments dismissing the claims, and the claimants appealed.
The Appellate Division, 2 A.D.2d 538, 156 N.Y.S.2d 924, reversed the judgments, directed judgments for the claimants, and held that where employees of Department of Public Works remained until 6:00 P.M. to warn and protect users of the highway against the danger of the tree, which had not been removed because entangled with live power lines, but those employees left the scene at 6:00 P.M. with no one to see that flares and lanterns, which wind was extinguishing, remained lit, employees were negligent, and their negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
The State of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that findings of Court of Claims, unreversed by the Appellate Division, were supported by substantial evidence, and that the State was not negligent in relying on its barricades, lanterns, and flares, and that any attempt to recall men to duty for use as flagmen would have been impractical and useless.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. , for appellant.
Salvador J. Capecelatro, Utica, Williams & Williams, Utica, for claimants-respondents (Salvador J. Capecelatro, Jr., Utica, on the brief).
As to judgments of the Court of Claims in favor of Frieda Karrat, George Karrat, an infant, by Frieda Karrat, his Guardian ad Litem, and James Raya: Judgments affirmed, with costs.
As to judgments of the Court of Claims in favor of John Karrat and the judgment in favor of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkinson v. State
...care and that such neglect was a contributing cause of the accident. The factual situation in the case of Karrat Bros. & Co. v. State of New York, 3 N.Y.2d 993, 169 N.Y.S.2d 909, cited by the court, is quite different from the situation presented by this record. In the case of the passenger......
-
Wilkinson v. State
...neglected this duty and his neglect was a contributing cause to the accident and injuries resulting therefrom. Karrat Bros. & Co. Inc. v. State, 3 N.Y.2d 993, 169 N.Y.S.2d 909. The claim of Charles N. Wilkinson for damages to personal property, medical expenses incurred in treatment of the ......