DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT IN THIS VEHICLE-BICYCLE COLLISION CASE; THE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE REAR DRIVER’S SIDE DOOR WHEN DEFENDANT TURNED LEFT INTO A CAR WASH; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this vehicle-bicycle collision case should not have been granted:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when, while riding a bicycle, he came into contact with the rear driver’s side of a motor vehicle that was operated by the defendant, as it was turning left into a car wash. …

An operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way has an obligation to keep a proper lookout and see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles … . Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a defendant moving for summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing that he or she is free from fault … .

Here, when questioned at his deposition, the defendant admitted that in the short period leading up to the accident, he could not recall where he was looking. The defendant further admitted that he did not see the plaintiff prior to impact and only realized there was an accident when he heard the impact to the rear driver’s side of his vehicle. Accordingly, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that he kept a proper lookout and that his alleged negligence did not contribute to the happening of the accident … . Carias v Grove, 2020 NY Slip Op 05029, Second Dept 9-23-20