There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause/Defendants Did Not Establish Freedom from Comparative Fault
The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should not have dismissed causes of action against a restaurant and a valet parking service. Plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed as she attempted to cross the street when defendant driver passed cars double-parked in front of the restaurant:
” There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident'” … . Thus, ” the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law'” … . The issue of comparative negligence is generally one for the trier of fact … .
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, [the restaurant] and the [parking service] defendants each failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. On this record, even assuming, arguendo, that the actions of [the driver] and the decedent were negligent and were proximate causes of the accident, the evidence submitted by [the restaurant] and the [parking service] defendants, in support of their motion and cross motion, respectively, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether those defendants were free from comparative fault…. Spadaro v Parking Sys Plus, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 00494, 1st Dept 1-29-14