Case Name: Claire F. Stanton, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan L. Stanton, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1970-04-23
Citations: 26 N.Y.2d 990
Docket Number: Claim No. 41420
Parties: Claire F. Stanton, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan L. Stanton, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 990–997

Head Matter:
Claire F. Stanton, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan L. Stanton, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.
(Claim No. 41420.)
Argued April 6, 1970;
decided April 23, 1970.
Alger A. Williams, Frank G. Raichle and Irving E. Field for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Douglas L. Manley and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. We affirm for the reasons stated in the majority opinion at the Appellate Division. We merely add the following to amplify our determination.
Appellant in this action seeks a recovery against the State on the theory that the alleged negligence of a State trooper resulted in the death of her husband. While it is most unfortunate that bystanders are sometimes innocently involved and injured by the police in the performance of their duties, such emotional and understandable human considerations are not a substitute for proof of negligence. The trooper in the instant case was engaged in the regulation of highway traffic. He was faced with an emergent situation and chose what he considered, in his best judgment, to be the most effective means of dealing with a motor vehicle operator who was endangering the lives of other motorists on the highway. While hindsight can often furnish reasons for following one course or another, the acts of the trooper here must be considered as of the time when, and circumstances under which, they occurred. With that in mind, we find that his conduct was not unreasonable or negligent. At least there was an issue of fact, the result of which is beyond our power of review.
Accordingly, the order appealed from, should be affirmed.