Atkinson v. County of Oneida
Cases that cite this one
45 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- District of Columbia v. Freeman (D.C. 1984)
- Alexander v. Eldred (N.Y. 1984)
- Stiggins v. Town of North Dansville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Turturro ex rel. Turturro v. City of New York (N.Y. 2016)
- Howard v. Tylutki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Alber v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Barton v. Town of Malone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Scheemaker v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Giannelis v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Bowman v. Kennedy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Noller v. Peralta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- O'Buckley v. County of Chemung (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Bailey v. County of Tioga (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Dennis v. Vansteinburg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Turnmire v. Concrete Applied Technologies Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Clementoni v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Abair v. Town of North Elba (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Stach v. Town of New Windsor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Perry v. Kazolias (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Parmeter v. Bedard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Gattone v. Conlan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Martucci v. Tirro Construction Corp. (New York Supreme Court 2002)
- Gilberto v. Town of Plattekill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Clark v. City of Lockport (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Long v. Cleary (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
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
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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.