You are here: / / NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

The Second Department determined defendant, who suffered a stroke while driving, could not be held liable for the accident:

“The operator of a vehicle who becomes involved in an accident as the result of suffering a sudden medical emergency will not be chargeable with negligence as long as the emergency was unforeseen” … . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating through deposition testimony, the defendant driver’s medical records, and expert medical evidence that the accident was caused by the defendant driver experiencing an acute stroke at the time of the accident, which was unforeseeable … . Van De Merlen v Karpf, 2017 NY Slip Op 01251, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY)/MEDICAL EMERGENCY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY)

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS REQUESTED GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE WHICH WAS PROCURED BY THE BROKER; THE BROKER WAS NOT UNDER A DUTY TO ADVISE, GUIDE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFFS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COVERAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to File Proof of Service Is a Procedural Irregularity Which Can Be Cured
Effect of Ambiguity in Easement Explained
Damages Related to Improvements Made on Condemned Property Allowed.
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).
Building Owner Entitled to Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Based Upon Tracked In Water (Inclement Weather)–Tenant Ordinarily Does Not Have a Duty of Care Re: Common Areas
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED UPON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY HE WAS QUALIFIED BY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO RECOGNIZE THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD 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

BUILDING OWNER’S AND ELEVATOR COMPANY’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH...