You are here: / / WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SALT-SPREADING TRUCK OCCURRED...
, , ,

WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SALT-SPREADING TRUCK OCCURRED ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PARKING LOT AFFECTED THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PROOF ON THAT ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; DEFENDANTS’ ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY; THE $12 MILLION VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a new trial was necessary on both liability and damages in this traffic accident case. Supreme Court had found the $12,000,000 verdict excessive and had ordered a new damages trial. The accident occurred in a parking lot at LaGuardia Airport during a snowfall and involved a salt-spreading truck. Proof whether the parking was public or private should have been allowed because the reckless disregard standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law) would apply if the parking lot was public. The First Department further found that the defendants’ accident reconstructionist should have been allowed to testify:

Plaintiff, an employee at a Dunkin Donuts franchise in LaGuardia Airport, was involved in an accident with a salt spreading truck operating in parking lot 10 of the airport during a snowfall. The trial court erred in truncating proof on the issue of whether lot 10 was public or private. This error then directly impacted whether the jury should have been charged with the recklessness standard as set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 … . The error in the charge warrants a new trial … .

The court also erred in precluding defendants’ accident reconstructionist from testifying … . The court’s in limine inquiry of the expert concerning scientific studies was not relevant, as the subject of the testimony, accident reconstruction and perception reaction time are not novel scientific theories, such as to require a Frye hearing … . The proposed expert testimony was based on evidence in the record concerning the accident, and was not entirely speculative … . Similarly, defendants’ notice of expert exchange was not insufficient such as to warrant his in toto preclusion. The remedy for any alleged failures in specificity could have been handled by limiting his testimony to the subject matters listed in the exchange (CPLR 3101[d]). Cabrera v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 03993, First Dept 7-16-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Judge’s Failure to Follow Statutory Requirements for Handling Jury Questions Required Reversal.
A HEAVY DOOR FELL ON PLAINTIFF’S HAND AS HE AND A CO-WORKER ATTEMPTED TO LIFT THE DOOR ONTO A TRUCK; NO LIFTING DEVICES WERE AVAILABLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING.
Criteria for Domicile Explained
TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION.
No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed
CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MOVE TO DISQUALIFY LAW FIRMS WHICH NEVER REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND...