Ward v. Clark
| Decision Date | 22 November 1921 |
| Citation | 232 N.Y. 195,133 N.E. 443 |
| Parties | WARD v. CLARK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Action by Walter A. Ward against Frederick W. Clark. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (189 App. Div. 344,179 N. Y. Supp. 466), reversing a judgment of the Trial Term for plaintiff entered on a verdict, and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment of Appellate Division reversed, and that of Trial Term affirmed.
See, also, 190 App. Div. 928,179 N. Y. Supp. 957.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
William MacFarlane, of Rochester, for appellant.
Carleton F. Bown, of Rochester, for respondent.
Plaintiff's automobile and defendant's were in collision at the intersection of Selye terrace and Pierrepont street in the city of Rochester. Plaintiff was driving east on Selye terrace, and defendant north on Pierrepont street. About 75 feet away from the point of collision, plaintiff saw the defendant's car, distant from the same point about 150 feet. He cut off his power for an instant, reduced his rate of speed, and measured with his eye the speed of the approach. The rate of progress of the two cars-the plaintiff's a small Ford car, and the defendant's a larger Hudson-seemed then to be the same. Forty feet from the point of collision, the plaintiff looked again, with the defendant 80 feet away. The street he had to cross was only 30 feet wide. He pressed forward, with quickened speed, judging that he had ample time, and looking at the same moment in the other direction, to the left, for the assurance of safety there. He had almost made the crossing when his rear wheel was struck by the bumper of the defendant's car, which, according to some witnesses, had increased its rate of speed. The defendant admitted that he had not looked in the direction of the plaintiff's approach, and had not seen the crossing car until the instant of collision. He also admitted that the fault was his, and promised to make good the loss. A verdict in plaintiff's favor was reversed by the Appellate Division, and the complaint dismissed, on the ground of contributory negligence.
[1][2] We think the case was for the jury. With the plaintiff's car 40 feet away, and the defendant's eighty, there appeared to be sufficient clearance. So, at least, a reasonable man might not unreasonably believe. Sudden acceleration of the defendant's speed was not to be foreseen. Even with added speed, the defendant, if he had looked, could have avoided collision by a trifling bend to the left upon an unobstructed street. The plaintiff in shaping his own course might act on the assumption that common skill and prudence would shape the defendant's also. He was not required to foresee the defendant's blind and uncompromising adherence to an undeviating line. The supreme rule of the road is the rule of mutual forbearance. Mark v. Fritsch, 195 N. Y. 282, 283, 284,88 N. E. 380, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632, 133 Am. St. Rep. 800.
[3] The defendant, it is said, had the right of way under the statute. ‘Every driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection of a street or public road shall grant the right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turnbull v. Powell
...fact raised by the motion, before a referee, before the court, or before the court and jury, whichever may be proper. In Ward v. Clark, 232 N.Y. 195, 198, 133 N.E. 443, the Court of Appeals stated that “the supreme rule of the road is the rule of mutual forbearance.” In other words, “[A] dr......
-
Sine v. Salt Lake Transp. Co.
... ... J. 963. The supreme rule ... of the road as to motorists at street intersections in cities ... is the rule of mutual forbearance. Ward v ... Clark , 232 N.Y. 195, 133 N.E. 443. The foregoing ... rules were particularly applicable to Butcher because [106 ... Utah 299] he was the ... ...
-
Daas v. Pearson
...road and he is bound not to anticipate that anyone is going to disobey it.' This statement and its predicate, found in Ward v. Clark (232 N.Y. 195, 198, 133 N.E. 443), must be viewed in the light of its analysis in the opinion of Mr. Justice Van Voorhis in McDonald v. Central School Dist. N......
-
Bentley v. Olson
...282, where a similar statute was construed, but stated that a more recent decision of the Court of Appeals of that state in Ward v. Clark, 232 N.Y. 195, 133 N.E. 443, had given a preferable construction of the law. In that case plaintiff drove east, defendant north, on two intersecting stre......