You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED BY THE POLICE; THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL RULES IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE-CHASES THAN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THE INTERNAL RULES COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the plaintiff’s judgment after trial and ordering a new trial in this traffic accident case, determined the defendant police department’s internal police-chase rules should not have been admitted in evidence without a limiting instruction explaining the rules could be considered as some evidence of negligence. The internal rules imposed a higher standard of care for police-chases than the reckless-disregard standard imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a driver who was being pursued by the police. The jury found both the driver and the police negligent:

The Suffolk County defendants are correct that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence, without any limiting instruction, the Suffolk County Police Department Rules and Procedures on vehicular pursuits. An organization’s internal rules or manuals, “to the extent they impose a higher standard of care than is imposed by law, are inadmissible to establish” a violation of the standard of care … .

Here, the rules and regulations at issue imposed a higher standard of care than the reckless disregard standard imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, which “‘qualifiedly exempts drivers of emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation, and precludes the imposition of liability for otherwise privileged conduct except where the driver acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Thus, we conclude that the Supreme Court committed reversible error in admitting the internal rules without providing a limiting instruction that the rules could be considered only as some evidence of recklessness along with other factors … . Foster v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 05956, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

You might also like
Purchase of Property Encumbered by an Unsatisfied Mortgage Gave Rise to Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Civil Conspiracy Causes of Action Against Title Insurance Company
THE WRONGFUL DEATH COMPLAINT ALLEGED PORT AUTHORITY WAS NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO INSTALL SUICIDE-PREVENTION BARRIERS ON THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT FATHER’S ABUSE OF MOTHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE FROM A PRIOR NEGLECT PROCEEDING, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
NO EVIDENTIARY SHOWING OF MERIT REQUIRED TO AMEND ANSWER, MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Check Box on Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petitions

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 DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY... THE ACTION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL TEN DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...