You are here: / / EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE SEEN DECEDEN...

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE SEEN DECEDENT.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion the defendant bus driver was negligent. Plaintiff's decedent was crushed by the bus as the bus pulled out of a bus stop. The driver never saw the decedent. The majority held that the location of the body indicated the decedent should have been seen by the bus driver. The dissent argued the evidence of negligence on the driver's part was speculative and the complaint should have been dismissed. The majority wrote:

Decedent … was found dead under one of defendant Transit Authority's buses. While the bus driver had no explanation for how her body came to be there, plaintiffs' evidence, including DNA evidence matching samples recovered from the bus, was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the bus driver was negligent in operating the bus. The evidence showed facts and conditions from which negligence and causation could “be reasonably inferred” … . In particular, plaintiffs showed that decedent's body had been crushed by the bus at such an angle that the bus driver, pulling out of the bus stop, should have, with the proper use of his senses, seen decedent … . Oates v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 02729, 1st Dept 4-12-16


You might also like
Lease Which Purported to Deregulate Rent-Controlled Apartment Is Void As Against Public Policy
Summary Judgment May Be Based Upon an Unpled Affirmative Defense/Oral Waiver May Be Effective in the Face of a “Written Waiver” Requirement in the Contract
FAILURE TO NAME INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS, OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS, IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED IN THE COMPLAINTS.
Re: a Third-Party Settlement, Consent of Special Fund Required Before Carrier Entitled to Reimbursement from Special Fund
THE ATTEMPT TO CORRECT A SENTENCING MISTAKE IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE PRESENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE INDICTMENT DID NOT GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE PARTICULAR CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
FOIL Request for Police “Intelligence Division” Documents Re: Surveillance of “Middle Eastern, South Asian or Muslim Persons” Properly Denied

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

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN... DEFENDANTS LIABLE UNDER A GRATUITOUS BAILMENT THEORY FOR DESTROYED GOODS; PROPER...