Darling v. State
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Coates v. Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Md. 1999)
- Shevalier v. Bentley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Kirtoglou v. Fogarty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Pahler v. Daggett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Guy v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Alberti v.Rydill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Scotti v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Scattareggia v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1986)
- Dowling v. Consolidated Carriers Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Brogan v. Zummo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Gutelle v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Gutelle v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Amisano v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order reversed and claim dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the manner in which the automobile was being operated at the time, and not the presence of the utility pole in the grassy area of the shoulder of the highway, was the proximate producing cause of the accident (Ellis v. State of New York, 16 A D 2d 727, affd. 12 N Y 2d 770; Kinne v. State of New York, 8 A D 2d 903, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1068).
Concur: Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan. Chief Judge Desmond dissents and votes to affirm on these grounds: first, that, on this record, it was a question of fact, not law, as to whether the presence of the pole on the shoulder so near the travelled way was one of the proximate causes of the accident (Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482; Forte v. City of Albany, 279 N. Y. 416); and, second, that this decision is inconsistent with Darling v. Village of Herkimer (4 N Y 2d 1000) where we necessarily held that it was a question of fact not law whether this very pole was a proximate cause of this accident.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.