Antoinette Caristo, Appellants v. Augustine Sanzone, Respondents

Summary

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the emergency doctrine because the icy conditions were not a sudden and unforeseen emergency, and therefore reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and ordered a new trial. Justice Rosenblatt dissented, arguing that the jury should decide whether the ice was unforeseen and that the emergency instruction was proper.