You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant did not eliminate questions of fact in this traffic accident case about whether the emergency doctrine applied. Defendant was behind plaintiffs’ motorcycle when a vehicle (operated by Buck) ran a stop sign, broadsided a truck (operated by Matthew) which then collided with the motorcycle. There was evidence defendant’s vehicle then struck the motorcycle. Defendant testified she saw the Buck vehicle approaching the stop sign and thought it was going too fast to stop, The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant should have slowed down at that point:

In determining whether the actions of a driver are reasonable in light of an emergency situation, both the driver’s awareness of the situation and his or her actions prior to the occurrence of the emergency must be considered … . Here, defendant’s deposition testimony established that she saw Buck’s car on the access road approaching the stop sign “very, very fast,” “like he was still on the Thruway,” and that she also observed Matthew’s pick-up truck approaching the intersection. Defendant was “very conscious . . . because [she knew] there [were] a lot of accidents that happen on this road because people do not pay attention to the stop sign at that [a]ccess [r]oad,” and she “start[ed] to get nervous” that Buck’s vehicle was moving too fast to stop for the stop sign. Despite defendant’s awareness that the intersection presented a particular danger and her observations of Buck’s vehicle, however, defendant did not slow down, move over, or apply her brakes until after she saw Buck’s vehicle “smash into the truck.” At that point, defendant did not know where the motorcycle was in relation to her minivan. We thus conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant, in taking no evasive action and in making no effort to slow down, or move over, or otherwise attempt to avert the impending collision, responded reasonably under the circumstances … . Gilkerson v Buck, 2019 NY Slip Op 05435, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

You might also like
THE $40,000 PAID BY DECEDENT TO HER CAREGIVERS SHORTLY BEFORE DECEDENT ENTERED A NURSING HOME WAS PAYMENT FOR PAST SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO A PERSONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (PSA); IT WAS NOT AN “UNCOMPENSATED TRANSFER” SUBJECT TO THE 60-MONTH LOOKBACK FOR MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY (FOURTH DEPT). ​
COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.
POLICE OFFICER’S OPINION A HOMICIDE HAD BEEN COMMITTED AND THE VICTIM’S MOTHER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S PERSONAL BACKGROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OPINION ISSUE REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Against Third-Party Defendant Under Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
POSTREADINESS DELAY BECAUSE A PROSECUTION WITNESS WAS ON VACATION WAS CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENTS MADE AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED.
Petitioners Failed to Show the Noise from a Train Affected Them Differently From the Public at Large/Therefore the Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Raise a Challenge to the Source of the Noise Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act/Purpose of the Standing Requirement in this Context 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

PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE... ALTHOUGH THE TWO THYROID SURGERIES WERE PERFORMED BY THE SAME DOCTOR, THE 2005...