42 N.Y.2d 856 (1977)
r
r
A plaintiff’s contributory negligence should be determined by their conduct under all circumstances, including any emergency, irrespective of who created that emergency.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns a wrongful death action arising from a multi-car accident. The plaintiff’s intestate died after being struck by a car following an accident where the defendant, Gadson, had stopped in the left lane of the New York State Thruway due to a flat tire. The jury found Gadson negligent, but also found the deceased contributorily negligent. The trial court’s charge to the jury applied a different standard of care for contributory negligence depending on whether the defendant created the emergency. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that although the charge was imperfect, the jury’s finding of contributory negligence under a less stringent standard meant that any error in the charge was not prejudicial.
r
r
Facts
r
Defendant Threatt stopped his vehicle to aid defendant Gadson, whose car had a flat tire and was stopped in the extreme left-hand lane of the three-lane Thruway. Plaintiff’s intestate was a passenger in Threatt’s vehicle. A third car, driven by defendant Hickson, struck the rear of Gadson’s vehicle, propelling it forward and upon the decedent, causing fatal injuries. Hickson’s car then rebounded into the middle lane and collided with defendant Dworkin’s vehicle.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The plaintiff initiated a wrongful death action against multiple defendants, including Gadson, Threatt, Hickson, Humble Leasing Co. (owner of Hickson’s vehicle), and Dworkin. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the complaint against Dworkin was dismissed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. The Appellate Division’s order affirming the lower court was appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, which affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury to apply a different standard of care to the decedent’s contributory negligence depending on whether the defendant’s actions created the emergency situation.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the jury found the decedent contributorily negligent under the less stringent standard applicable to Gadson, any error in applying a higher standard to the other defendants was not prejudicial to the plaintiff.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the trial court’s charge to the jury differentiated the standard of care for contributory negligence. The court stated that the appropriate inquiry is the plaintiff’s conduct under the circumstances, including any emergency, regardless of who created it, citing Raimondo v. Harding, 41 AD2d 62, 65. Despite the imperfect charge, the jury made special findings indicating that the plaintiff had established the negligence of Gadson, Hickson, and Humble Leasing Co., but that the defendants had also established the decedent’s contributory negligence. The court reasoned that since the jury found the decedent contributorily negligent even under the less demanding standard of care applicable to Gadson (requiring “rash and wanton” conduct), the plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the stricter standard applied to Hickson and Humble Leasing Co. The court, in essence, found the error harmless because the jury’s finding of