You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S HAND WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSED DOOR OF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the driver of the bus negligent in closing the door on plaintiff’s hand and in failing to open the door to release plaintiff’s hand:

A “defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” …, and “[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … . The evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether [the driver] negligently closed the doors as the plaintiff was attempting to board the bus, and negligently failed to reopen the doors and release the plaintiff’s hand after it became trapped. John v Dobson, 2022 NY Slip Op 05029, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s hand was caught in the closed door of the defendants’ bus. There were questions of fact whether the driver was negligent in closing the door on plaintiff’s hand and failing to open the door to release plaintiff’s hand.

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD AND MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Give the Jury Instruction on Intoxication Required Reversal
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS CREDIT CARDS SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WERE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT; THE INCRIMINATING NATURE OF THE CREDIT CARDS WAS NOT IMMEDIATELEY APPARENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER, ANSWERING A CALL, ACTED RECKLESSLY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT TESTIMONY OF THE PEOPLE’S DNA EXPERT, THE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION (SECOND DEPT).
Justice Should Have Recused Himself—Law Clerk Married to Hearing Witness

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

DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE... PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST, WAS ASSAULTED BY AN AUTISTIC STUDENT; THE...