You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN...

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff’s decedent apparently backed into defendant’s lane of traffic from the median. There was conflicting evidence about defendant’s speed and the distance between decedent’s car and defendant (i.e., there was conflicting evidence about the applicability of the emergency doctrine):

Given the conflicting accounts about the distance and the elapsed time between when decedent’s vehicle moved into defendant’s lane and the collision and defendant’s speed prior to the accident, we conclude that triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendant’s actions, when confronted with an emergency situation, were reasonable and whether he could have taken evasive action to avoid decedent’s vehicle … . We further conclude that there are issues of fact as to whether decedent’s actions, under the circumstances of this case, were not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment … . Brust v McDaniel, 2018 NY Slip Op 04069, Third Dept 6-7-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE FOUR-YEAR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY IN THIS RAPE CASE DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY-TRIAL RIGHTS; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO STOP DELIBERATIONS IF IT FOUND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED TO THE TOP COUNT (MURDER); DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED) (THIRD DEPT).
Mother’s Failure to Seek Medical Care for Child Coupled With Mother’s Mental Illness Supported Neglect Finding
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).
CO-WORKERS’ EGREGIOUS AND LEWD BEHAVIOR, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYER’S INADEQUATE RESPONSE, CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.
Claimant Was an Employee Notwithstanding a Written Agreement Describing Her as an Independent Contractor
THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE WHEN THE OBJECTION WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL WAS MADE; THERE WAS ONLY ONE HEARING AND THE REGULATION IN EFFECT AT THE TIME ONLY ASKED “WHEN” THE OBJECTION WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).
Object’s Fall of 1 ½ Feet Constituted Physically Significant Elevation Differential for Purposes of Requiring a Safety Device Pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1)

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

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED... BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT,...