Case Name: Harry Darling et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1965-10-21
Citations: 16 N.Y.2d 907
Docket Number: Claim No. 34041
Parties: Harry Darling et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 907–908

Head Matter:
Harry Darling et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.
(Claim No. 34041.)
Argued September 27, 1965;
decided October 21, 1965.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Jean M. Coon and Paxton Blair of counsel), for appellant.
Paul N. Carter for respondents.

Opinion:
Order reversed and claim dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the manner in which the automobile was being operated at the time, and not the presence of the utility pole in the grassy area of the shoulder of the highway, was the proximate producing cause of the accident (Ellis v. State of New York, 16 A D 2d 727, affd. 12 N Y 2d 770; Kinne v. State of New York, 8 A D 2d 903, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1068).
Concur: Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan. Chief Judge Desmond dissents and votes to affirm on these grounds: first, that, on this record, it was a question of fact, not law, as to whether the presence of the pole on the shoulder so near the travelled way was one of the proximate causes of the accident (Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482; Forte v. City of Albany, 279 N. Y. 416); and, second, that this decision is inconsistent with Darling v. Village of Herkimer (4 N Y 2d 1000) where we necessarily held that it was a question of fact not law whether this very pole was a proximate cause of this accident.