Case Name: Dayton M. Rounds et al., Respondents, v. Herbert W. Fitzgerald, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-11-25
Citations: 239 N.Y. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dayton M. Rounds et al., Respondents, v. Herbert W. Fitzgerald, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 239
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Dayton M. Rounds et al., Respondents, v. Herbert W. Fitzgerald, Appellant.
Negligence — motor vehicles — collision between van proceeding along street and truck which approaching from opposite direction turned in front of van to enter intersecting street — erroneous charge.
Rounds v. Fitzgerald, 207 App. Div. 534, affirmed.
(Argued October 21, 1924;
decided November 25, 1924.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 16, 1924, reversing. a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial. The action was to recover for damage to plaintiff’s van arising from a collision with one of defendant’s trucks at the corner of State and Eldredge streets in the city of Binghamton. The two vehicles were approaching each other on opposite sides of State street; the van going south, the motor truck going north. As they approached, they were substantially the same distance from the intersection of the two streets and going at substantially the same rate of speed, about fifteen miles per hour. As defendant’s truck approached the intersection the driver made a signal by extending his hand. As he reached the intersection he turned abruptly to his left to enter Eldredge street. He proceeded and the collision occurred on the westerly side of State street. The Appellate Division held that it was error for the trial court in response to a request to charge “ that if the jury find that both the plaintiffs and defendant were an equal distance from the center of Eldredge and State .streets, both approaching at the same rate of speed, the plaintiffs would be entitled to proceed across that intersection first,” to charge that “ the same rule applies to both parties, that under the circumstances they were both bound to use the same degree of care and caution that a reasonably prudent man would have used under such circumstances.”
Arthur J. Ruland and Charles H. Burnett for appellant.
Clarence L. Chamberlain for respondents.

Opinion:
Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts;no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.