Case Name: Raymond Burnash, Appellant, v. William Dunn et al., Respondents; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Appellant, v. William Dunn et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1964-01-16
Citations: 13 N.Y.2d 1139
Docket Number: 
Parties: Raymond Burnash, Appellant, v. William Dunn et al., Respondents. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Appellant, v. William Dunn et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 1139–1141

Head Matter:
Raymond Burnash, Appellant, v. William Dunn et al., Respondents. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Appellant, v. William Dunn et al., Respondents.
Argued January 6, 1964;
decided January 16, 1964.
Martin Brichman for appellants.
John J. Scully for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. (Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp., 10 N Y 2d 20).
Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld and Burke. Taking no part: Judge Bergan. Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that this accident did not occur upon a " ramp ", as that term is defined by rule 23-35.1 of the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals. Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp. (10 N Y 2d 20) involved an inclined plane to permit trucks to descend into an excavation. In our view, even that case does not require classification as a ramp of any sloping land off from a public highway which has been traversed by other vehicles or even if in ordinary parlance it may be termed a driveway. This record does not establish that the " driveway" used was the type of ramp contemplated in the Conte case or by the provisions of the State Board of Standards and Appeals regulations.