Knibbs v. Wagner
| Decision Date | 30 November 1961 |
| Parties | Raymond KNIBBS, Appellant, v. Alvon WAGNER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert F. Conway, Buffalo, for appellant.
Smith, Murphy & Schoepperle, Buffalo, for respondent (Thomas W. Steffan, Buffalo, of counsel).
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., GOLDMAN, HALPERN, McCLUSKY, and HENRY, JJ.
(1) While the allegation that the defendant had pleaded guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law, section 70(5), 1 was evidentiary in character, it was not irrelevant or prejudicial and therefore should not have been stricken out upon a motion under Rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Proof of the conviction will be admissible upon the trial, since the conviction was of a crime and not of a mere traffic infraction and relates to the matters in issue (People v. Formato, 286 App.Div. 357, 143 N.Y.S.2d 205, 64 A.L.R.2d 812, aff'd. 309 N.Y. 979, 132 N.E.2d 894; Schindler v. Royal Insurance Co., 258 N.Y. 310, 179 N.E. 711, 80 A.L.R. 1142; Matter of Rechtschaffen, 278 N.Y. 336, 16 N.E.2d 357). Moreover, the plea of guilty constituted an admission against interest and will be admissible as such upon the trial (Ando v. Woodberry, 8 N.Y.2d 165, 203 N.Y.S.2d 74, 168 N.E.2d 520; Walther v. News Syndicate Co., 276 App.Div. 169, 93 N.Y.S.2d 537). Nothing was gained by striking the allegation out of the complaint.
(2) The allegations of the so-called second cause of action seeking recovery for punitive damages because of the defendant's 'gross, wilful and wanton negligence' in undertaking to drive the car after 'voluntarily getting drunk' should not have been stricken out. The claim for punitive damages is not a separate cause of action; it merely constitutes 'an element of the single total claim for damages' (Gill v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 284 A.D. 36, 41, 129 N.Y.S.2d 288, 49 A.L.R.2d 1452). But even so, the allegations should not have been stricken out. The allegations of willfulness and wantonness are sufficient to authorize the jury to award punitive damages (1 Clark, N.Y.Law of Damages, Sec. 74). Whether punitive damages should be awarded in this case will depend, of course, upon the facts as they are developed upon the trial. The parties to this appeal ask us to decide as an abstract matter whether driving while intoxicated is a sufficient basis for an award of punitive damages. We do not believe it to be necessary or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brody v. Leamy
...Court of Claims; and, of course, the complaint herein may be deemed to include a cause of action for punitive damages (Knibbs v. Wagner, 14 A.D.2d 987, 222 N.Y.S.2d 469).6 The Eleventh Amendment states: 'The Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in......
-
Chiapperini v. Gander Mountain Co.
...Sup.Ct.1964).Under the above standard, Gander's strike request cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. See e.g. Knibbs v. Wagner, 14 A.D.2d 987, 222 N.Y.S.2d 469 (4th Dept.1961) (sustaining denial of motion to strike evidentiary matters which were relevant and thus not prejudicial). Gander obje......
-
Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.
...does not properly constitute a separate cause of action (see, e. g., Schwed v. Turoff, 73 A.D.2d 615, 422 N.Y.S.2d 134; Knibbs v. Wagner, 14 A.D.2d 987, 222 N.Y.S.2d 469; Gill v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 284 App.Div. 36, 129 N.Y.S.2d Finally, there is the issue of class action certification. ......
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...appear in order. Assuming for the moment that plaintiffs' prayer for damages includes a claim for punitive damages (Knibbs v. Wagner, 14 A.D.2d 987, 222 N.Y.S.2d 469; Gill v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 284 App.Div. 36, 129 N.Y.S.2d 288; Browdy v. State-Wide Ins. Co., 56 Misc.2d 610, 289 N.Y.S.2......