You are here: / / DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND ...
,

DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN WHICH DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs' motion to set aside the defense verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted. Defendant acknowledged she turned right coming out of a parking lot but was looking to her left. Defendant struck the pedestrian plaintiffs. The jury found defendant was negligent but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The court noted that the plaintiffs may also have been negligent, but there was no reasonable view of the evidence in which defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause:

… [T]he jury's determination that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident did not rest upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . The issues of negligence and proximate cause are so inextricably interwoven in this case that the jury's finding that the defendant was negligent cannot be reconciled with its finding that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident … . That is, the defendant admitted that she turned right out of a parking lot while looking to her left despite the fact that she knew that pedestrians crossed 71st Avenue at that location to access the parking lot from which she was exiting. Notwithstanding any negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, the defendant's negligence in driving in one direction while looking in the other direction and thereby failing to see pedestrians who were there to be seen in the middle of the street was a substantial, not a slight or trivial, cause of this accident … . Accordingly, although the plaintiffs may also have been negligent, no fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's finding that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Cruz v Jeffrey, 2016 NY Slip Op 03134, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (SECOND DEPT).
LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Defense Counsel’s Conduct Did Not Warrant Setting Aside the Verdict
Wife’s Encumbrance of Marital Property in Violation of Court Order and Knowledge of the Court Order by Mortgage-Holder’s Agent Precluded Payout to Mortgage-Holder from Surplus Foreclosure Sale Proceeds
BARKING AND STRAINING AT THE LEASH CONSTITUTE NORMAL CANINE BEHAVIOR AND DID NOT SERVE TO MAKE DEFENDANTS AWARE OF THE DOG’S ALLEGED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A WALKWAY WET FROM RAIN WHICH WAS FALLING AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
“Cleaning” Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1) Explained

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

INSURED’S EXCUSES FOR DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURANCE BROKERS OF PENDING... STATEMENT IN HOSPITAL RECORD ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS PART...