You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF THE MOTORCYCLE, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF THE MOTORCYCLE, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver of the motorcycle (Baker) could have avoided this intersection traffic accident case. The motorcycle had the right-of-way and collided with defendants’ (Willow Bend’s) truck. Plaintiff was a passenger on the motorcycle. Willow Bend’s cross motion against the driver of the motorcycle (Baker Estate) should not have been dismissed:

We agree with the Willow Bend defendants that the court erred in granting that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Willow Bend defendants’ cross claim. In moving for summary judgment, the Baker Estate had the initial burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Baker “was operating [the motorcycle] in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing that [Baker] could have done to avoid the collision” … . “[I]t is well settled that drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” … . “[U]nder the doctrine of comparative negligence, a driver who lawfully enters an intersection may still be found partially at fault for an accident if he or she fails to use reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle in the intersection” … . We conclude that the Baker Estate failed to meet that burden, inasmuch as its own submissions in support of the motion raised a triable issue of fact … .

Although the Baker Estate established that Baker had the right-of-way as he approached the intersection, the Baker Estate submitted the deposition testimony of Baker and plaintiff, who each testified that, before the collision, Baker applied his brakes but did not attempt to steer around the dump truck. Baker further testified that he did not use his horn. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Willow Bend defendants, that testimony raises an issue of fact whether Baker exercised reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident … . Carroll v Willow Bend Farm LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00954, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

You might also like
People Did Not Meet Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing
Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before; Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal
HERE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED DECADES AGO IN MASSACHUSETTS AND SUED UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT WHICH SERVES TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ORDINARILY THE BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES TO OUT-OF-STATE TORTS REQUIRING THE ACTION TO BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH NEW YORK AND THE FOREIGN STATE’S LAWS; HERE THE “RESIDENT EXCEPTION” APPLIED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S WERE NEW YORK RESIDENTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE; THEREFORE THE ACTION NEED ONLY BE TIMELY UNDER NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION IN NEW YORK; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WAS MURDERED BY MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND: THE SUIT ALLEGING THE COUNTY DID NOT ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE PRIOR REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED; PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION.
ONE OF THE GRAND JURORS HAD A FELONY CONVICTION RENDERING THE GRAND JURY ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED WAS IRRELEVANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH 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

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PLACEMENT OF A RUG CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION... SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF...