You are here: / / “Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators...
, ,

“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street Sweepers in New York City—Standard Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the “reckless disregard” standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103, not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the operator of a New York City street sweeper who was in the process of cleaning the street when the sweeper struck plaintiff’s car.  A question of fact had been raised whether the applicable standard of care was violated:

… [U]nder VTL § 1642, the City of New York is authorized to establish additional rules, including rules that supercede those of the State (see VTL § 1642 [a] [“the legislative body of any city having a population in excess of one million, may by local law . . . restrict or regulate traffic on or pedestrian use of any highway . . .]). At the time of the accident, 34 RCNY [Rules of the City of New York] § 4-02 (d) (1)(v) provided that VTL § 1103 applies “to any person or team or any operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” and that “such persons are not relieved from the duty to proceed at all times during all phases of such work with due regard for the safety of all persons nor shall the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph protect such persons or teams or such operators of motor vehicles or other equipment from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others” (34 RCNY § 4-02 [d] [1] [iv]).

In Riley [95 NY2d 455], this Court held that the unambiguous language of VTL § 1103 (b), as further supported by its legislative history, made clear that the statute exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including sanitation sweepers, which are “actually engaged in work on a highway” (95 NY2d at 460), and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care (see id. at 466). The Court further concluded that liability under that standard is established upon a showing that the covered vehicle’s operator “‘has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (id. at 466… ). Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 04788, CtApp 6-9-15

 

You might also like
UNDER THE FACTS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT COERCION IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE HAVE IDENTICAL ELEMENTS. 
THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BUT NEVER SERVED, THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT WERE TIMELY INTERPOSED AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO APPLY THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (CT APP).
HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​
STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).
Aggravated Harassment Statute Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad/Criminal Impersonation Statute Encompasses Injury to Reputation
UNVERIFIED CELL PHONE SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION IN A SPRINT BUSINESS RECORD WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ADMITTED FOR ITS TRUTH, RATHER IT WAS ADMITTED AS A PIECE OF A PUZZLE LINKING THE CELL PHONE TO THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS OTHERWISE LINKED TO THE ROBBERY.
A GAP IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT AND A DISCREPANCY IN THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BAG CONTAINING THE DRUGS DID NOT RENDER THE DRUGS INADMISSIBLE (CT APP).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Need to Be Affiliated with an Authorized Rescue Entity or Volunteer Agency... Allowing a Detective Who Was Involved in the Investigation of Defendant’s...