Plaintiff Unable to Demonstrate Freedom from Comparative Negligence as a Matter of Law; Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Automobile Accident Case Denied
In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability in an automobile-accident case, the Second Department explained the plaintiff failed to demonstrate freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law:
“There can be more than one proximate cause [of an accident] and, thus, the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” …. While an operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield…, the operator traveling with the right-of-way still has an obligation to keep a proper lookout and see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles…. The issue of comparative fault is generally a question for the trier of fact … .
Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence eliminating a triable issue of fact as to whether she contributed to the happening of the accident…. Since the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, her motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant’s papers in opposition… . Regans v Baratta, 2013 NY Slip Op 03468, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS