152 N.Y.S. 293 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1915
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that her intestate, a roan fifty-nine years of age, between eight and nine o’clock
Accepting the plaintiff’s version of the accident, as did the jury by its verdict, the judgment cannot be sustained. The decedent had reached a place of safety and suddenly stepped backward in the path of the automobile. The ground upon which the recovery is sought to he sustained is that the decedent was placed in a position of danger by the negligent blowing of the automobile horn. In the charge the learned court said to the jury: “It is claimed by the plaintiff that this man had safely crossed the north-hound track, when, excited or disturbed or frightened by the sound of this Klaxon horn, instead of stepping forward he stepped hack onto a point
The learned counsel for the respondent in his brief states: “We have been unable to find any cases in this State holding that the blowing of a horn under such circumstances is a negligent act.” It is provided in chapter 314 of the Laws of 1910, entitled “An Act to amend the Highway Law,
It has been held in innumerable cases that a failure to observe an ordinance or a statute is evidence of negligence. This is the first case that has been brought to our attention where obedience to an ordinance or statute is made the ground of a recovery for negligence.
Scott and Dowling, JJ., concurred; Laughlin and Hotoh- . kiss, JJ., dissented.
Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.
Consol. Laws, chap. 25; Laws of 1909, chap. 30.—[Rep. .