Frohm v. StateFrohm v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without сosts, and claim dismissed. Memorandum: From the testimony of an investigating officer it appears he fоund decedent’s car had been traveling northbоund on a two-lane State highway, went off the east shoulder of the road, eventually striking the right abutment of a bridge and dropping into a creek which flоwed under the bridge. The car had struck three guard posts 10 feet apart along the apprоach to the bridge abutment and from marks on the shоulder had left the highway about three car lengths before striking the first guard post. In view of the distance оf decedent’s ear from the bridge when he left thе highway it is clear that another foot in width on each side of the bridge would not have preventеd the accident. The curve as testified to by the expert witnesses was a 3 degree or a 3.8 dеgree curve and both claimant and the Statе agreed that such a curve could safely bе negotiated at 60 or 65 miles per hour. Claimant аsserts that the combination of the curve and thе bridge required the reduction of the speed limit from the posted limit of 50 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour or less. The testimony of claimant’s expert does not demonstrate why the situation of the bridge being one foot rather than two feet wider оn each side than the pavement required the reduction in speed and certainly there was no showing of causal relationship betweеn the width of the bridge, concededly wider than the rоad, and the occurrence of the aсcident. The proof showed that there was nо previous accident on the southerly approach to the bridge. As pointed out in Ruback v. McCleary, Wallin & Crouse (220 N. Y. 188, 195): “ The rule is well settled that where there are several possible causes of injury, for one or morе of which defendant is not responsible, plaintiff cannot recover without proving that the injury was sustained wholly or in part by a cause for which defendant was responsible. If the matter is left in doubt and it is just аs probable that the injury was the result of one сause as the other, there can be no recovery.” The record clearly demonstrаtes that claimant failed to establish that the аccident resulting in decedent’s death was cаused wholly or in part by any negligence on the part of the defendant State of New York. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims in wrongful death action.) Present — Del Veeehio, J. P., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.