TEDLA V. ELLMAN
280 N.Y. 124, 19 N.E. 2d 987 (1939)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Ellman (D) appealed an order from the Appellate Division affirming a
judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of Tedla (P) in their action for negligence.
FACTS: Anna Tedla and her brother, John Bachek (Ps), were struck by a passing automobile,
operated by D. Anna was injured and Bachek was killed. Bachek was a deaf-mute. Ds had
engaged in collecting and selling junk. They picked up junk at the incinerator of the
village of Islip. At the time of the accident Ds were walking along and wheeling baby
carriages containing junk and wood. It was about six o'clock, on a Sunday evening in
December. Bachek was carrying a lighted lantern. The jury found that the accident was due
solely to the negligence of the operator of the automobile. The place of the accident,
consists of two roadways, separated by a grass plot. There are no footpaths along the
highway and the center grass plot was soft. It is not unlawful for a pedestrian, wheeling a
baby carriage, to use the roadway under such circumstances. The Vehicle and Traffic Law
(Cons. Laws, ch. 71) provides that 'Pedestrians walking or remaining on the paved portion,
or traveled part of a roadway shall be subject to, and comply with, the rules governing
vehicles, with respect to meeting and turning out, except that such pedestrians shall keep
to the left of the center line thereof, and turn to their left instead of right side
thereof, so as to permit all vehicles passing them in either direction to pass on their
right. Such pedestrians shall not be subject to the rules governing vehicles as to giving
signals.' Ds did not and were not observing the statutory rule. At the time of the accident,
they were proceeding in easterly direction on the east-bound or right-hand roadway. D moved
to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that violation of the statutory rule
constitutes contributory negligence as matter of law. The trial judge left to the jury the
question whether failure to observe the statutory rule was a proximate cause of the
accident. The trial judge found for P, which the appellate division affirmed. On this
appeal, D argues the pedestrians were contributorily negligent as a matter of law for
violating the statute.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment