You are here: / / Failure to Take Evasive Action Did Not Constitute Contributory Neglige...

Failure to Take Evasive Action Did Not Constitute Contributory Negligence

The Second Department explained that a driver faced with making a quick decision because another driver has failed to yield the right-of-way is not comparatively negligent:

[The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger] entered the intersection where the collision occurred against a red traffic light, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110(a) …, and that this was the sole proximate cause of the accident. A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law … .

* * * [The other driver’s] deposition testimony that she did not take evasive action in the seconds before impact did not raise a triable issue of fact. “[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” …, and ” was entitled to anticipate that the [other driver] would obey the traffic law requiring [her] to yield'” … . Joaquin v Franco, 2014 NY Slip Op 02904, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

You might also like
Action for Fraud Cannot Be Based on Same Facts as Breach of Contract; Fraud Must Be Pled in Detail
THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).
A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MENTION DE-ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUTURE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT DE-ACCELERATED AND THE SUBSEQUENT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS LIABLE FOR HER BABY’S BRAIN DAMAGE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S AMBULANCE BROKE DOWN ON THE WAY TO THE HOSPITAL, CAUSING A DELAY IN DELIVERY; DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY, WHICH PROVIDED THE AMBULANCE, WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF; THE MUNICIPALITY CAN NOT BE HELD LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE WELL DEFECT, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Criteria for Recovery of Lost Profits for Breach of Contract Described

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Collision With Another Swimmer Not Actionable/Primary Assumption of Risk Application to File Late Notice of Claim (One Month Late) on Behalf of Infant...