You are here: / / Emergency Doctrine Does Not Apply Where Party Invoking It Contributed to...

Emergency Doctrine Does Not Apply Where Party Invoking It Contributed to the Creation of the Emergency

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court's ruling that the emergency doctrine did not apply to the defendant (Smith). Defendant crossed over the grassy median from the southbound lane striking plaintiff's vehicle in the northbound lane. Defendant argued that the emergency doctrine applied because defendant's vehicle was struck from behind, causing it to leave its lane of traffic.  The Second Department determined the emergency doctrine did not apply because defendant contributed to the rear-end collision by slowing down without signaling at a time when defendant was aware the vehicle behind was tail-gating:

…[T]he defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the emergency doctrine applied … . The emergency doctrine is not a defense available to the defendants because the emergency condition was partially created by Smith's disregard of existing traffic conditions … . Smith had a duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision … . At his deposition, Smith admitted that he was aware that the unidentified vehicle had been tailgating him for about 10 to 20 seconds. Despite being aware that he was being tailgated on a highway, he deliberately slowed his vehicle by disengaging the cruise control without proper signaling. Then, the unidentified vehicle hit the rear of his vehicle. Under these circumstances, it was foreseeable that slowing down without proper signaling could result in a rear-end collision. Accordingly, as Smith contributed to the creation of the emergency situation, the emergency doctrine is not applicable. Pearson v Northstar Limousine Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08968, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE TENANT HAD VIOLATED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE, THE EVICTION PENALTY SHOCKED THE CONSCIENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.
PLAINTIFF CHANGED LANES, CUT OFF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF THE CAR IN FRONT; DEFENDANTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE MOTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE IT; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT AWARDED DEFENDANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY, SUA SPONTE, ORDERED A FRYE HEARING AFTER WHICH THE COMPLAINT AGAINST A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY USED A FRYE HEARING TO AVOID THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE.
PLAINTIFF’S CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHEN THE PUDDLE WAS FIRST SEEN AND HOW LONG THE PUDDLE HAD BEEN ON THE FLOOR PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER A CHAIR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER THE CHAIR, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE OFFICER REENTERED THE HOME TO LOOK UNDER THE CHAIR (SECOND DEPT).
Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff’s Action—Defendant’s Alleged Default Irrelevant
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

2 1/2 Year Delay In Correcting Location of the Slip and Fall Described in the... Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Student Assumed the Risk of Injury from...