Opinion

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Eisenberg

  • 18 N.Y.2d 1
  • 271 N.Y.S.2d 641
  • 218 N.E.2d 524
  • 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1271
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 9, 1966
Status
Published
Author
Scileppibergan
On the bench
Bergan, Burke, Desmond, Fuld, Keating, Scileppi, Voorhis
Cited by
62 cases

The opinion

Scileppi and Bergan, JJ.

(dissenting). Words that have a plain meaning and a commonly understood legal effect ought not be rationalized to a different meaning because it seems desirable to escape the effect of reading them as they are. The term “physical contact ” means what it seems to mean — that *6 the hit-mn car is in actual and direct impact “ with ” the injured person, or “with” the vehicle the injured person is in. This cannot reasonably mean contact with a third vehicle, which vehicle in turn is in ‘ ‘ physical contact ’ ’ with the injured person. It would be easy to include such a secondary relation if it had been intended. For reasons of policy or, perhaps, the uncertainties of application, it was not included, and the way the statute is written excludes the situation that is shown by this record.

The order should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, VaN Voorhis and Burke concur with Judge Keating; Judges Scileppi and BergaN dissent in a memorandum.

Order of Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.