Schneider v. Miecznikowski
| Decision Date | 11 April 1962 |
| Citation | 226 N.Y.S.2d 944,16 A.D.2d 177 |
| Parties | Elton D. SCHNEIDER, Respondent, v. Richard C. MIECZNIKOWSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jaeckle, Fleischmann, Kelly, Swart & Augspurger, Buffalo, Harry J. Kelly, Buffalo, of counsel, for appellant.
Miles, Cochrane & Grosse, Buffalo, Raymond T. Miles, Buffalo, of counsel, for respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, HALPERN and McCLUSKY, JJ.
This case again illustrates the fact that Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice may not properly be invoked in automobile accident cases, except in rare instances. It is clear from the record that, if the facts now presented in affidavit form and in the form of an examination before trial of the parties, were presented to a court and jury in regular course upon a trial, the court would not be justified in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff but would be required to submit the case to the jury for its determination. In such circumstances, summary judgment may not be granted.
It appears that the plaintiff was the owner of a Ford automobile which he allowed the defendant to drive. The plaintiff remained in the automobile as a passenger in the front seat alongside the defendant. The Ford automobile had a standard automatic gear shift. The defendant owned a 1953 Nash automobile in which the 'gears [were] situated differently' and in which there apparently was an extra forward drive for use on 'a straight highway'. As the defendant explained upon the examination before trial, while he was traveling between 40 and 50 miles an hour, he had the 'idea that [he] was driving [his] car and [he] was going to put it up in high drive and [he] went into reverse which it shouldn't have been in'. When the car went into reverse, the wheels started slipping and the car went off the road.
Momentary forgetfulness is not negligence as a matter of law (Rugg v. State, 284 App.Div. 179, 131 N.Y.S.2d 2). (Rugg v. State, supra, 284 App.Div. 183, 131 N.Y.S.2d 6.)
The order appealed from granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed and the motion for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andre v. Pomeroy
...head-on with plaintiff's car); Cicero v. Clark, 23 A.D.2d 583, 256 N.Y.S.2d 705 (defendant fell asleep at wheel); Schneider v. Miecznikowski, 16 A.D.2d 177, 226 N.Y.S.2d 944 (defendant, traveling at between 40 and 50 miles per hour, shifted car into reverse); Donahue v. Romahn, 10 A.D.2d 63......
-
Salmon v. Mickelson
...as the question of negligence is essentially one of fact. (Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 362 [(1974]; see Schneider v. Miecznikowski, 16 A.D.2d 177 [4TH Dep't, 1962]; Barker v. Savage, 45 N.Y.191[1871]; Salomone v. Yellow Taxi Corp., 242 N.Y. 251[1926]). When a court decides a motion for......
-
Kaiser v. State
...order 17 N.Y.2d 911, 272 N.Y.S.2d 133, 218 N.E.2d 899; Connell v. Buitekant, 17 A.D.2d 944, 234 N.Y.S.2d 336; Schneider v. Miecznikowski, 16 A.D.2d 177, 178, 226 N.Y.S.2d 944, 945; Gerard v. Inglese, 11 A.D.2d 381, 383, 206 N.Y.S.2d 879, 882; Esteve v. Abad, 271 App.Div. 725, 727, 68 N.Y.S.......
-
Zellman v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority
...Here, while he knew of the existence of the danger, his attention was necessarily attracted elsewhere.4 __________ Schneider v. Miecznikowski, 16 A.D.2d 177, 226 N.Y.S.2d 944 is quite relevant. There the plaintiff owner of an automobile was riding as a passenger while defendant was operatin......