Weber v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 05 May 1966 |
| Citation | 217 N.E.2d 839,17 N.Y.2d 790,270 N.Y.S.2d 759 |
| Parties | , 217 N.E.2d 839 Katie WEBER, Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, and Ignatius Abruzzo, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 24 A.D.2d 618, 262 N.Y.S.2d 222.
Matthew E. McCarthy, New York City (Benjamin H. Siff and Herbert A. McDevitt, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Seymour B. Quel and Benjamin Offner New York City, of counsel), for respondent City of New York.
Pedestrian brought action against truck driver, owners of gasoline service station, operator of station, and the City of New York for injuries sustained by the pedestrian when the truck driver, after having gasoline pumped into tank of truck, backed up the truck to proceed to another facility of the station and struck the pedestrian on the sidewalk. The owners and the operator of the station filed cross claims against the truck driver, and the City of New York filed cross claims against the other defendants.
The Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County, Frank J. Pino, J., entered a judgment for the pedestrian against all defendants, and dismissing the cross claims asserted against the truck driver by the owners and the operator, and for the City of New York on its cross claims. The City of New York, the owners, and the operator appealed.
The Appellate Division entered an order which reversed, on the law and the facts, the judgment of the Trial Term insofar as appealed from, dismissed the complaint as to all defendants except the truck driver, severed the action as to the truck driver, and vacated the judgment insofar as it was in favor of the City of New York on its cross claims, and held that the negligent operation of the truck driver was the sole cause of the accident, and that there was no causal connection between the negligent operation of the truck and the location of the pumps.
The pedestrian appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that there were questions of fact whether negligence of the owners and operator of the station in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the station in such manner as to constitute a foreseeable hazard to pedestrians was a proximate contributing cause of the accident and as to whether the City of New York was negligent in failing to abate the use of the sidewalk adjacent to the station when it knew or should have known that it was being used for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Di Ponzio v. Riordan
...driven by patron of car wash went out of control]; Weber v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 618, 262 N.Y.S.2d 222, affd 17 N.Y.2d 790, 270 N.Y.S.2d 759, 217 N.E.2d 839 [truck driver backed into plaintiff, who was walking on public sidewalk adjacent to gas pumps]; Abazis v. Parks, 189 A.D.2d 739......
-
Barker v. Wah Low
...150 N.W.2d 681, 684--686; Weber v. City of New York (1965) 24 A.D.2d 618, 619, 262 N.Y.S.2d 222, 224, aff'd. (1966) 17 N.Y.2d 790, 270 N.Y.S.2d 759, 217 N.E.2d 839; Flanagan v. Anania (S.Ct. Nassau Cty. 1959) 196 N.Y.2d 431, 432; Cunningham v. Pratt (Okl.1964) 392 P.2d 725, 728--729; Safewa......
-
Stone v. Williams
...496, 503, 387 N.Y.S.2d 92, 354 N.E.2d 832; see, also, Weber v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 618, 262 N.Y.S.2d 222, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 790, 270 N.Y.S.2d 759, 217 N.E.2d 839; Tauraso v. Texas Co., 275 App.Div. 856, 89 N.Y.S.2d 146, aff. 300 N.Y. 567, 89 N.E.2d 526; cf. Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. ......
-
Hayes v. State
...show that he exercised due care and that his injury was proximately caused by the motorist's negligence. Weber v. City of New York, 17 N.Y.2d 790, 270 N.Y.S.2d 759, 217 N.E.2d 839, aff'g, 24 A.D.2d 618, 262 N.Y.S.2d 222; Naeris v. New York Telephone Co., 5 N.Y.2d 1009, 158 N.E.2d 126, aff'g......