You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS STRUCK BY AN ONCOMING CAR WHICH CROSSED A DOUBLE...
,

DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS STRUCK BY AN ONCOMING CAR WHICH CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment, based on the emergency doctrine, should have have been granted. A car traveling in the opposite direction crossed a double yellow line into the path of defendant’s car:

Pursuant to the emergency doctrine, “those faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time for reflection or reasonably causes them to be so disturbed that they are compelled to make a quick decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, may not be negligent if their actions are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency” … . “Under appropriate circumstances, the existence of an emergency, as well as the reasonableness of the actor’s response to it, may be determined as a matter of law” … . “A driver is not obligated to anticipate that a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic, and such an event constitutes a classic emergency situation, thus implicating the emergency doctrine” … . Lizares v Conklin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01081, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: A driver is not obligated to anticipate that an oncoming car will cross a double yellow line into the driver’s lane. In such a situation, the emergency doctrine applies to insulate the driver from liability.

 

You might also like
UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s 440.46 Motion for Resentencing Should Not Have Been Denied
Criteria for Common Law Negligence Re: Injury Caused by an Intoxicated Guest Explained
THE DENIAL OF THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT ADVISE PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).
Emergency Exception to Warrant Requirement Misapplied
RADIOLOGIST WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEFORMITY WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM A FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE A FRACTURE. 
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND 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

THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION... THE INJURED PARTY WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON IN AN ALTERCATION OUTSIDE A BAR; IT...