Luce v. Hartman
| Decision Date | 14 May 1959 |
| Citation | 159 N.E.2d 677,6 N.Y.2d 786,188 N.Y.S.2d 184 |
| Parties | , 159 N.E.2d 677 Mark LUCE, Appellant, v. Laura HARTMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 5 A.D.2d 19, 168 N.Y.S.2d 501.
Farmer brought action against motorist for injuries sustained by farmer when he fell into a hole in his pasture while rounding up cattle in the dark after motorist had driven off highway and had torn down a portion of farmer's fence.
The Cattaraugus Trial Term, Joseph A. Nevins, J., entered judgment in favor of the farmer, and the motorist appealed.
The Appellate Division, Vaughan, J., reversed the judgment, dismissed the complaint, and held that though motorist was negligent in driving off highway and tearing down portion of pasture fence, motorist could not foresee that farmer would fall into hole in his pasture while rounding up his cattle, and that therefore the motorist's negligence was not the proximate cause of the farmer's injuries.
The farmer appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Joseph Brownstein, Buffalo, for respondent.
Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed and that of Trial Term reinstated, with costs in this Court and in the Appellate Division, upon the ground that facts were submitted as to negligence and proximate cause justifying submission of the case to the jury.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andre v. Pomeroy
...631; Orwat v. Smetansky, 22 N.Y.2d 869, 870--871, 293 N.Y.S.2d 126, 127--128, 239 N.E.2d 749, 750--751; Luce v. Hartman, 6 N.Y.2d 786, 787--788, 188 N.Y.S.2d 184, 159 N.E.2d 677; Schuvart v. Werner, 291 N.Y. 32, 35, 50 N.E.2d 533; Tedla v. Ellman, 280 N.Y. 124, 134, 19 N.E.2d 987, 992; Ward......
-
Daas v. Pearson
...on the issue of proximate cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In Luce v. Hartman, 5 A.D.2d 19, 168 N.Y.S.2d 501, revd. 6 N.Y.2d 786, 188 N.Y.S.2d 184, 159 N.E.2d 677, defendant negligently drove her car into and knocked down a barded wire fence enclosing a pasture in which plaintiff's cow......
-
Wartels v. County Asphalt, Inc.
...it almost always as a question of fact (Orwat v. Smetansky, 22 N.Y.2d 869, 293 N.Y.S.2d 126, 239 N.E.2d 749; Luce v. Hartman, 6 N.Y.2d 786, 188 N.Y.S.2d 184, 159 N.E.2d 677; Schuvart v. Werner, 291 N.Y. 32, 50 N.E.2d 533; and the case of the surviving injured plaintiff in Tedla v. Ellman (2......
-
Mace v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
...the foreseeability of plaintiff's conduct and, therefore, the question of proximate cause was for the jury (Luce v. Hartman, 6 N.Y.2d 786, 188 N.Y.S.2d 184, 159 N.E.2d 677). Moreover, it appears that in its discussion of plaintiff's conduct in continuing to drive the truck with knowledge of......