You are here: / / A DRIVER WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ENTITLED TO ANTICIPATE OTHER DRIVERS...
,

A DRIVER WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ENTITLED TO ANTICIPATE OTHER DRIVERS WILL OBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS REQUIRING THEM TO YIELD; HERE DEFENDANT ENTERED AN INTERSECTION WITH A GREEN LIGHT AND PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF HIM; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant driver demonstrated he had the right-of-way when he entered the intersection with and green light and plaint made a left turn in front of him. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

“A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way” … . “Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … .

Here, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he had the right-of-way, the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way, and the defendant did not have sufficient time to react in order to avoid the collision … . The defendant, as the driver with the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that the plaintiff would obey the traffic laws which required her to yield … . Smith v Trail, 2023 NY Slip Op 06070, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: A driver who fails to take evasive action can be contributorily negligent. But here defendant entered the intersection with a green light and plaintiff made a left turn in front of him. Plaintiff did not raise a question of fact whether defendant had time to take evasive action.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
HERE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION; PLAINTIFF PASSENGER HAD SUED DECEDENT DRIVER AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY; THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DECEDENT DRIVER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECEDENT DRIVER; THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY DID NOT GIVE THE INTERESTED PARTIES THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE DRIVER’S DEATH; AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE DECEDENT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CHANGED WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED PEOPLE V PAYNE, BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HEARD DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION AND SHOULD HAVE REVERSED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AND DISMISSED THE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE RULINGS IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS CASE, HEARINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Late Submission of QDRO (Re: Spouse’s Pension) Did Not Affect Submitting Spouse’s Right to Arrears to the Date of Retirement—One Spouse’s Taking Out a Loan Against His/Her Pension Will Not Reduce the Other Spouse’s Share of the Pension
Petition Seeking Revocation of Building Permit Should Have Named the Director Who Had the Power to Revoke It
AFTER THE CITY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, THE PLAINTIFFS, YEARS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED, MOVED FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND...