From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casey v. Ross

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 19, 1961
178 N.E.2d 429 (N.Y. 1961)

Summary

In Casey v. Ross (10 N.Y.2d 834), the Court of Appeals reversed a plaintiff's judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding contributory negligence as a matter of law on plaintiff's part when she crossed Central Park South in broad daylight, 45 feet from the intersection, into the path of the defendant's car in the fourth lane after she had been motioned across by a motorist who had stopped in the third lane to let her go by.

Summary of this case from Rettegi v. Gremelsbacker

Opinion

Argued October 3, 1961

Decided October 19, 1961

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first Judicial Department, THOMAS C. CHIMERA, J.

William J. Regan and Thomas J. Flood for appellants-respondents.

Ralph Stout and Samuel Shorenstein for respondent-appellant.


Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER. Judge DYE dissents and votes to affirm upon the ground that under the circumstances here present the issues of defendants' negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence presented questions of fact which were properly left to the trial court for its determination. The court's finding in favor of plaintiff on those issues, having been affirmed by the Appellate Division, is conclusive ( Mayer v. Temple Props., 307 N.Y. 559; Le Roux v. State of New York, 307 N.Y. 397; Schuvart v. Werner, 291 N.Y. 32).


Summaries of

Casey v. Ross

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 19, 1961
178 N.E.2d 429 (N.Y. 1961)

In Casey v. Ross (10 N.Y.2d 834), the Court of Appeals reversed a plaintiff's judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding contributory negligence as a matter of law on plaintiff's part when she crossed Central Park South in broad daylight, 45 feet from the intersection, into the path of the defendant's car in the fourth lane after she had been motioned across by a motorist who had stopped in the third lane to let her go by.

Summary of this case from Rettegi v. Gremelsbacker
Case details for

Casey v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:MARY CASEY, Respondent-Appellant, v. ANDREW ROSS et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 19, 1961

Citations

178 N.E.2d 429 (N.Y. 1961)
178 N.E.2d 429
221 N.Y.S.2d 726

Citing Cases

Stanley v. Surface Transit, Inc.

This record establishes that plaintiffs' experienced trial counsel set in motion a chain of events which…

Rettegi v. Gremelsbacker

With the Code of Ordinance of the City of Glen Cove (§ 14-176) saying, "Every pedestrian crossing a roadway…