From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gabrielly v. Mailley

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County
Oct 21, 1959
19 Misc. 2d 560 (N.Y. Misc. 1959)

Opinion

October 21, 1959

Brand, Morgan Brand for plaintiffs.

Martin A. Crean for defendants.


Motion by the plaintiffs for summary judgment is denied.

The plaintiffs claim that it was 10:00 P.M., that it was raining and the streets were wet, that their vehicle approached the intersection, slowed down to 20 miles per hour, and that their car was hit in the rear by the defendants'.

The defendants claim that they were going about 25 miles per hour, and when 50 to 75 feet behind the plaintiffs' automobile the plaintiffs' automobile came to a sudden stop, without signalling, and without the stop signals operating, and that the defendants' auto skidded into the plaintiffs'.

Negligence may not be inferred from the mere fact that the auto skidded or that the accident happened. ( Lahr v. Tirrill, 274 N.Y. 112.) Nor is the operator of the rear car necessarily negligent if it strikes the car ahead, which stopped without warning. ( Zwilling v. Harrison, 269 N.Y. 461.)

There is a triable issue of fact and the motion is denied.

Order signed.


Summaries of

Gabrielly v. Mailley

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County
Oct 21, 1959
19 Misc. 2d 560 (N.Y. Misc. 1959)
Case details for

Gabrielly v. Mailley

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS GABRIELLY et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES R. MAILLEY et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County

Date published: Oct 21, 1959

Citations

19 Misc. 2d 560 (N.Y. Misc. 1959)
196 N.Y.S.2d 131

Citing Cases

Truszcynski v. Hertz Corp.

The defendants claim that on the night of the accident it was raining and the streets were slippery; that as…

Ortiz v. Rosner

Such a circumstance might be that the preceding vehicle "stopped short," or that unforeseeable road…