Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Van de Walker v. State 278 N.Y. 454

← Cases

Van de Walker v. State

278 N.Y. 454 Court N.Y. Decision date 1938-10-18 Docket Claim No. 24193; Claim No. 24195; Claim No. 24196 English

Contents

Majority

p. 454
Belva Van de Walker, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent. Willard Scammell, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent. George A. Earl, Jr., Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.
(Claim No. 24193.)
(Claim No. 24195.)
(Claim No. 24196.)
Argued October 5,1938;
decided October 18,1938.
p. 456
A. Lee Olmsted for appellants.
The new findings made by the Appellate Division are contrary to and against the weight of evidence, and should be reversed and the original findings of the Court of Claims reinstated. (Miller v. State, 137 Misc. Rep. 768 ; 231 App. Div. 363 ; Johnson v. State, 104 Misc. Rep. 395 ; 186 App. Div. 389 ; 227 N. Y. 610 ; Sporborg v. State, 226 App. Div. 113 ; Floss v. State, 240 App. Div. 944 ; Isaac v. Town of Queensbury, 244 App. Div. 14 ; 247 App. Div. 263 ; Roberts v. Town of Eaton, 238 N. Y. 420 ; Best v. State, 203 App. Div. 339 ; 236 N. Y. 662 ; Ross v. State, 265 N. Y. 632 .)
John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Leon M. Layden and Joseph I. Butler of counsel), for respondent.
The negligent and careless manner in which the claimant Earl operated his car was the proximate cause of the accident and the new findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Appellate Division are supported by the facts and according to the weight of evidence. (Best v. State, 203 App. Div. 339 ; Roberts v. Town of Eaton, 238 N. Y. 420 ; Wade v. Town of Worcester, 134 App. Div. 51 ; Worden v. State, 134 Misc. Rep. 848 ; 228 App. Div. 739 ; Elansky v. State, 133 Misc. Rep. 331 ; 226 App. Div. 713 ; Herbert v. Smith Paper Corp., 243 App. Div. 260 ; Shaft v. State, 264 N. Y. 625 ; Barges v. State, 245 App. Div. 792 .)

The evidence supports the finding that the highway was extraordinarily dangerous at the place

p. 457
of the accident and that it was negligence to fail to re-erect a sign which had been maintained and obliterated prior to the accident in suit.

In each case the judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Court of Claims affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., taking no part.

Judgment accordingly.

Cases cited