Atkinson v. Cnty. of Oneida, 451 N.E.2d 494 (N.Y. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Atkinson v. Cnty. of Oneida, 451 N.E.2d 494 (N.Y. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Giannelis v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 8593 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
59 N.Y.2d at 842 Determining proximate cause when drivers are familiar with intersection9 citing casesflashing yellow lights on the north-south road with an advisory speed sign for southbound motorists, and that its failure to do so was a proximate cause of his…opening of page *842 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Giannelis v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 8593 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).published
    That said, in view of Elliott's familiarity with the intersection, her failure to observe Giannelis riding a bicycle right in front of her and her disregard of a yield sign that required her to either slow down or stop as necessary for any…
  • Stiggins v. Town of North Dansville, 155 A.D.3d 1617 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017).published 2 cites
    Although defendant presented evidence that Benedict was intoxicated and driving “at high speed,” we conclude that its submissions did not establish as a matter of law that Benedict’s manner of driving “would have been the same” if the safe…
  • Bailey v. Cnty. of Tioga, 77 A.D.3d 1251 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010).published
    While it is generally true that the failure to provide additional warnings regarding a road condition will not be deemed a proximate cause of an accident where the drivers in question are “well acquainted” with the intersection (Atkinson v…
  • Dennis v. Vansteinburg, 63 A.D.3d 1620 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2009).published
    Inasmuch as defendant was “well acquainted” with the road, any negligence on the part of the Village “cannot be deemed a proximate cause of [the] injuries” sustained by plaintiffs daughter (Atkinson v County of Oneida, 59 NY2d 840, 842 [19…
  • Abair v. Town of North Elba, 35 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006).published
    School Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 674 [1999], quoting Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 51 [1994]), but where the record establishes that the alleged failure of duty could not have played a role in causing the alleged injury, summary judgmen…
  • Howard v. Tylutki, 305 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).published
    Liability may be excused where the municipality’s alleged negligent maintenance could not be a proximate cause of the accident (see Atkinson v County of Oneida, 59 NY2d 840, 842 [1983]; Duger v Estate of Carey, supra at 879; Parmeter v Bed…
  • Perry v. Kazolias, 302 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2003).published
    Furthermore, since Kazolias was familiar with the roadway and the approaching 90-degree turn, the absence of additional warning signs could not be a proximate cause of the accident (see Atkinson v County of Oneida, 59 NY2d 840, 842 [1983];…
  • Turnmire v. Concrete Applied Tech. Corp., 56 A.D.2d 1125 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2008).published
    Third, we conclude that defendants failed to establish that plaintiff was “sufficiently familiar with the area such that [he was] aware of the physical conditions surrounding the roadways which additional warning signs . . . would have pro…
  • O'Buckley v. Cnty. of Chemung, 88 A.D.3d 1140 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).published
    The evidence merely established that decedent, who did not live in the Town, had ridden with his mother on the road on “many occasions” as a child and, under these circumstances, issues of fact remain as to causation (see Alexander v Eldre…
59 N.Y.2d at 841 Demonstrating proximate cause of roadway accident4 citing cases
  • Turturro ex rel. Turturro v. City of New York, 68 N.E.3d 693 (N.Y. 2016).published
    If a municipality is not entitled to immunity, a plaintiff still must demonstrate that its negligent maintenance of the roadway was a proximate cause of the accident (see Atkinson v County of Oneida, 59 NY2d 840, 841 [1983]).
  • Bowman v. Kennedy, 126 A.D.3d 1203 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published
    Even where a municipality is not entitled to immunity, a plaintiff must still demonstrate that the alleged negligent design of the roadway was a proximate cause of the accident (see Atkinson v County of Oneida, 59 NY2d 840, 841 [1983]; Fer…
  • Noller v. Peralta, 94 A.D.3d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published
    Moreover, without evidence that the failure to provide a traffic control device was a proximate or concurring cause of an accident, municipal liability may not be found (see Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 463-464 [1984]; Atkinson v Count…
  • Clementoni v. Consol. Rail Corp., 30 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2006).published
    “Under these circumstances, . . . plaintiffs awareness of the [railroad tracks] eliminated the absence of warning signs as a proximate cause of the accident” (Gattone v Conlan, 299 AD2d 394, 394-395 [2002]; see Applebee v State of New York…
Other citing cases6 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard M. Atkinson
v.
County of Oneida
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 9, 1983.
Published opinion
451 N.E.2d 494
1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3170
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Bartle J. Gorman, Earle C. Bastow and William B. Calli, County Attorney {John M. Freyer and Thomas R. Smith of counsel), for appellant., Terry D. Smith for respondents., Robert Abrams, Attorney-General {Michael S. Buskus and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for State of New York, amicus curiae.
Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

Plaintiff was severely injured when the automobile he was driving southbound on Preston Hill Road was struck by an eastbound automobile at the intersection with Hillsboro Road, both of these highways being county roads. Plaintiff brought this personal injury action against the County of Oneida alleging that the county had negligently failed to review its existing traffic safety plan in light of the accident history at the intersection and to alter the plan by maintaining additional signs on both roads.

Although the county had a continuing duty to review its traffic safety plan in light of actual operation (see Gutelle v City of New York, 55 NY2d 794), on the facts of this case it cannot be said that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by a breach of duty by the county. In light of this disposition, the question of what standard of care applies to the county’s duty to review its traffic safety plan is not reached.

On the north-south road, the county had erected cautionary signs advising of the intersection ahead. The east-west road had “Stop” signs at the intersection and “Stop Ahead” signs placed more than 500 feet in advance of the intersection. Plaintiff argues that the county also should have maintained flashing red lights on the east-west road and[*842] flashing yellow lights on the north-south road with an advisory speed sign for southbound motorists, and that its failure to do so was a proximate cause of his injuries.

Plaintiff, however, admitted his familiarity with the location and the character of the intersection, having driven through it as many as 10 to 20 times a day over a five-year period. The driver of the other automobile had lived in the area for 24 years at the time of the accident and was also familiar with the intersection and its right of way.

Plaintiff argues that added lights and signs would have better served to warn drivers of the intersection’s character. Inasmuch as both drivers were well acquainted with the intersection and its right of way and all possible obstructions, under the instant facts, the county’s failure to erect the additional lights and sign cannot be deemed a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.