Sarna v. Davis — 280 A.D. 632

Majority

p. 632

Chester Sarna, Plaintiff, v. Bert Davis, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Charles Jackson, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Fourth Department,

November 19, 1952.

p. 633

Warren B. Murphy for. defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant.

J. Sheridan Hillick for third-party defendant-respondent.

The complaint in this action alleges that the plaintiff was operating his automobile in a southerly direction along Route 57 from the city of Fulton and that the defendant was operating his automobile in a westerly direction on a highway which intersected Route 57 and “ caused his automobile to enter Route 57 without slowing or stopping and which caused a certain automobile which was owned and/or operated by ” [the third-party defendant] “ proceeding northerly, to swerve across the highway and run into and collide with plaintiff’s automobile ”. It further alleged that defendant was operating his motor vehicle at a high rate of speed, without keeping a proper lookout and without slowing the vehicle upon approaching or bringing it to a stop before entering Route 57.

The third-party complaint alleges that the plaintiff was operating his car southerly on Route 57 when it was struck by an automobile owned and operated by the third-party defendant; that the plaintiff brought this action against the third-party plaintiff and that the collision between plaintiff’s and third-party defendant’s cars was caused solely by the negligence of the third-party defendant and asks for recovery over of- any sum which may be recovered by the plaintiff against him, the defendant and third-party plaintiff.

It is clear that if the defendant’s contention of how the accident happened as alleged in the third-party complaint is believed

p. 634

by the jury the plaintiff cannot recover against him. If the jury believes that both the defendant and third-party defendant were in some degree negligent then the defendant (third-party plaintiff) and third-party defendant are joint tort-feasors in which event the third-party action must be dismissed. (Fox v. Western N. Y. Motor Lines, 257 N. Y. 305 ; Middleton v. City of New York, 276 App. Div. 780 , affd. 300 N. Y. 732 ; Sannit v. Buffalo Wire Works, 278 App. Div. 632 , affd. 302 N. Y. 820 ; Wenleder v. Marine Trust Co., 277 App. Div. 941 ; Sadowski v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp., 277 App. Div. 943 ; Desimone v. Burgess Co., 278 App. Div. 751 ; Bornhorst v. Lyon, 279 App. Div. 820 .)

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

All concur. Present: Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cases cited

Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc. 257 N. Y. 305 N.Y. 1931-11-17 p. 634
Middleton v. City of New York 300 N. Y. 732 N.Y. 1950-04-06 p. 634
Sannit v. Buffalo Wire Works Co. 302 N. Y. 820 N.Y. 1951-05-24 p. 634