Robinson v. State

• Court: New York Court of Claims
• Writing for the Court: JOHN P. GUALTIERI
• Citation: Robinson v. State, 237 N.Y.S.2d 601, 38 Misc.2d 229 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1962)
• Decision Date: 13 December 1962
• Docket Number: Nos. 36213,36214,s. 36213
• Parties: Elizabeth L. ROBINSON and Russell J. Robinson, Claimants, v. The STATE of New York. Lawrence F. LIPE, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York. Claim

Page 601

237 N.Y.S.2d 601

38 Misc.2d 229

Elizabeth L. ROBINSON and Russell J. Robinson, Claimants, v. The STATE of New York.

Lawrence F. LIPE, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York.

Claim Nos. 36213, 36214.

Court of Claims of New York.

Dec. 13, 1962.

Salvatore J. Leombruno, Glen Falls, by James A. Davidson, Glen Falls, of counsel, for claimants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., by Paul Diggins, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, for the State.

JOHN P. GUALTIERI, Judge.

There are involved here two claims against the State of New York predicated upon negligence and involving a three car automobile accident which occurred on October 12, 1958, on state highway Route 50 known as the Schenectady-Ballston Spa Road.

The claimant, Elizabeth L. Robinson, was the operator of a 1956 Plymouth Station Wagon owned by her husband, Russell J. Robinson, which was proceeding in a northerly direction on Route 50 at or near the intersection of Route 50 with a town road known as the Outlet Road on the east and a county road known as the Charleton Road on the west. The county road and the town road would be a continuation of each other but for the intersecting state highway, Route 50.

One Valerie Rollier was operating a 1950 Dodge automobile in a westerly direction on the Outlet Road, coming into this intersection at the time of the accident.

The third vehicle, a 1956 Chevrolet, was being operated by one Frank Hyjek in a southerly direction on Route 50.

These three vehicles came into collision at this intersection resulting in injuries to the claimants, Elizabeth L. Robinson and Russell J. Robinson, who have joined their causes of action in one claim and to the brother of Mrs. Robinson, Lawrence F. Lipe, who is also a claimant here. Route 50 was at the time of the accident a highly travelled main artery of travel. The two roads intersecting Route 50 at the point of the accident are secondary roads, with less traffic, the county road intersecting the state highway from the west bearing somewhat more traffic than the Outlet Road, the town road meeting the state highway from the east.

There were traffic signs both north and south of the intersection warning motorists of the approaching intersection. There was a stop sign on the county road directing traffic moving easterly to come to a stop before entering Route 50. There was no traffic sign on the Outlet Road except a sign visible to motorists travelling westerly on said road that they were approaching Route 50 which sign had arrows pointing to the north and south.

This accident happened on a clear, bright, sunny Sunday afternoon . Traffic on Route 50, going both northerly and southerly was described as heavy.

The claimant, Elizabeth L. Robinson, with her brother, the claimant, Lawrence F. Lipe, sitting in the front seat beside her and her husband, Russell J. Robinson, seated in the rear seat, testified that she was travelling in a northerly direction approaching this intersection at about thirty-five miles per hour. She claims that as she approached the intersection she saw no car coming from her right, the Outlet Road, and when in the intersection there was a crash involving her automobile and the Rollier vehicle which came out of the Outlet Road and that this collision caused the Hyjek vehicle which was travelling southerly to become involved in this accident.

Mrs. Rollier, although not a party to this litigation, was sworn as a witness on behalf of the claimants. She claims that she was proceeding westerly on the Outlet Road; that she observed no traffic signs; that as she neared the state highway she slowed down almost to a stop and seeing no traffic proceeded into the intersection and that there was a crash. She testified at the trial that she had no recollection of seeing the Robinson vehicle approaching from her left. It was brought out that she testified at a Motor Vehicle Bureau Hearing that she came to a complete stop at the intersection; that she saw the Robinson station wagon two or three hundred feet south of the intersection and presumably felt that she had sufficient time to get across and went into the intersection after stopping.

Her testimony was vague, indefinite and unsatisfactory. The simple fact remains that if she stopped at the intersection she nevertheless took a chance on being able to hasten through the intersection before the Robinson vehicle reached that point; if she did not come to a complete stop, but simply slackened the speed momentarily and entered the intersection without seeing the Robinson vehicle her testimony would still be of little help because the Robinson vehicle had to be somewhere in the vicinity of the intersection for these vehicles to come into contact with each other a few feet from the point where she claims she slowed down. It must be borne in mind that there was no sign facing the Rollier car at this intersection directing her to stop and yield to traffic on the state highway and that she was approaching the intersection from the Robinson car's right. It is our finding that Mrs. Rollier did not come to a complete stop at the intersection but merely slowed down as a motorist would naturally do approaching an intersection.

Prior to 1957 the Outlet Road had a gravel base. In 1957 the Town Highway Department improved the Outlet Road making it a twenty-six foot paved highway with shoulders on each side and the road was designed and constructed upon specifications approved by both County and State officials. Immediately after this improvement and because of the potential increase in traffic on said Town Road, the Town caused to be erected at the intersection of said road with the state highway a stop sign directing traffic approaching the state highway from the east, travelling west, to come to a complete stop before entering the intersection. Unfortunately, for some reason not satisfactorily explained, employees of the State Department of Public Works removed the stop sign, returned it to the Town Superintendent of Highways informing her that she had no right to have erected that sign. The State did not replace the sign with any other kind of traffic control until the time of the accident.

At the time of the accident the speed limit in this area was fifty miles per hour on all three roads at this intersection, namely, state highway Route 50, the county road intersecting the state highway from the west which had a stop sign and the town or Outlet Road where there was no regulatory traffic sign whatsoever.

The claimants swore as one of their witnesses a Highway Safety Traffic Engineer who made a survey of the intersection and who testified that good and sound highway engineering practice dictated that there should have been in the exercise of proper judgment at least a 'Yield' sign against traffic entering Route 50 from the Outlet Road and that under all the circumstances then existing prudence and good judgment required that a 'Stop' sign should have been placed there.

The expert testified that there existed on the Outlet...