You are here: / Negligence
,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in this traffic accident case and plaintiff had raised questions of fact whether he suffered serious physical and psychological injury within the meaning of the no-fault law.  Plaintiff alleged defendant’s car struck his after crossing the double yellow line and defendant had pled guilty to crossing the double yellow line. The dissent argued plaintiff did not demonstrate psychological injury and did not meet the 90/180 day no-fault criteria:

​

This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff … , raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s alleged neck, back and left shoulder injuries constitute a serious injury under the significant limitation of use category  … . …

​

As for plaintiff’s alleged psychological injuries, “[i]t has been established ‘that a causally-related emotional injury, alone or in combination with a physical injury, can constitute a serious injury'” … .  * * *

​

… [P]laintiff proffered the affirmed narrative report of Barry Goldman, his primary care physician. Goldman stated that plaintiff visited his primary care practice more than a dozen times between August 2014 and November 2015 — three of which predated the second motor vehicle accident in September 2014 — for treatment relating to anxiety, stress, insomnia, nightmares, irritability, temperament changes and reliving and experiencing flashbacks of the June 2014 accident. Based on his review of the medical records generated from these visits, as well as his own examinations of plaintiff, Goldman concluded that plaintiff’s diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder was causally related to the June 2014 motor vehicle accident. He stated that, although the death of plaintiff’s wife and the second motor vehicle accident “may have added to his symptoms, the trauma of his first accident was the cause and directly related to his complaints.” This evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the June 2014 motor vehicle accident caused plaintiff to suffer psychological injuries constituting a significant limitation of use of a body function or system … .  Fillette v Lundberg, 2017 NY Slip Op 04180, 3rd Dept 5-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, NO-FAULT,PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY (NO-FAULT, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/SERIOUS INJURY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NO-FAULT, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)

PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff slipped on a wet area of a carpeted stairwell. Defendants’ evidence of general cleaning practices was not enough to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

​

Among other things, deposition testimony submitted by the defendants demonstrated that, although the building superintendent and property manager inspected the building on a regular basis, there was no specific schedule for the inspections and there were no records of inspections. Further, there was no cleaning schedule for the stairways and, if someone made a complaint about a dangerous condition on a stairway, the superintendent would not write that down. “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Perez v Wendell Terrace Owners Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04156, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

NEGLIGENCE (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store was not entitled to summary judgment in this tracked-in-water slip and fall case. The slip and fall was in the “card isle” of the store, not at the entrance. The court explained that proof of general cleaning practices, as opposed to when the area was last cleaned or inspected, will not support summary judgment:

​

While a defendant is not required to cover all of its floors with mats, or to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain … , a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action … . …

​

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, including transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and of the manager of the store at the time of the accident, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. The store manager stated that the store, which was open 24 hours a day, did not have set times when inspections were conducted, and that he did not know the last time that the card aisle had been inspected prior to the incident or what it looked like within a reasonable time prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall was not visible and apparent and that it had not been there for a sufficient period of time for the defendants to have discovered and remedied it … . Hickson v Walgreen Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04103, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)/WATER, TRACKED IN (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)

,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have granted leave to file a late notice of claim. “Petitioner was injured on July 15, 2015, while working as a bricklayer … at a job site located at an intermediate school in the Bronx. Petitioner alleges that while lifting 60 to 70 pound buckets, he tripped and fell due to an uneven floor on a makeshift scaffold. He filed a workers’ compensation claim on July 29, 2015, but did not file a notice of claim until July 15, 2016, a year later. In the intervening year, he underwent a shoulder and a hip surgery:”

​

The motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion. Petitioner failed to establish any of the relevant statutory factors that would warrant leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Petitioner’s alleged failure to realize the severity of his injuries within 90 days after his accident did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim, especially since petitioner filed a workers’ compensation claim just weeks after the accident… . Nor did petitioner show that respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period, or a reasonable time thereafter (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). There is no evidence that respondents received petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim form, which, in any event, makes no mention of the allegations against respondents … . Absent any knowledge of even a potential Labor Law claim, respondents certainly had no basis to conduct their own investigations … .

* * * … [T]here is no evidence respondents were aware of an accident even occurring. Petitioner … does no more than refer to numerous construction records that purportedly could be examined, yet provides no names of actual witnesses nor any reference to specific information in those records. Matter of Grajko v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04203, 1st Dept 5-24-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE.

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have limited discovery in this lead-paint exposure case to documents relating solely to the apartments where infant plaintiff resided or spent time. The condition of other portions of the buildings may be relevant to defendants’ notice of the condition of the paint:

​

The motion court should not have limited defendants’ production of records pertaining to lead-based paint exposure to the date of exposure and three years prior only in the subject apartments, namely, the apartment in which the infant plaintiff resided and the apartment, in a different building, where she attended day care. “While discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse” … .

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that defendants “knew, should have known, and/or had reason to know that there was deteriorated, defective, flaking, chipping and peeling paint in the Subject Premises [apartments] and the Subject Building,” which “could be harmful to children” … . Yet, despite this knowledge, the complaint alleges that defendants were negligent in performing repairs within the plaintiffs’ residence and the apartment where the infant plaintiff attended day care, and permitted the continued “emission, discharge[], spread and dissemination of lead based paint . . . thus causing the exposure of the infant plaintiff” to the hazardous conditions which were a contributing cause of her lead poisoning. Additionally, since plaintiffs had evidence from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), which showed numerous lead paint violations in the subject buildings, and since evidence of lead paint hazards in one part of a building may be relevant to the issues of defendants’ notice of the condition, duties and obligations to the plaintiffs … , plaintiffs’ demand for production of records for lead-based paint violations in the other apartments in the buildings was appropriate … . “Knowledge of a dangerous condition in one portion of the structure may have imposed upon the owners an obligation to examine’ other portions of the structure for defects arising from the same cause, and to ascertain what was ascertainable with the exercise of reasonable care” … . The fact that plaintiffs may have been able to access some evidence of lead paint violations in the building from HPD does not preclude plaintiffs from seeking these records directly from defendants in discovery … .  Z.D. v MP Mgt., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04059, 1st Dept 5-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/TOXIC TORTS  (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/DISCOVERY  (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/LEAD PAINT  (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)

,

MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE.

The First Department determined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur required the submission of this elevator-misleveling case to a jury. Plaintiff alleged she was injured removing a cart from the elevator:

​

The misleveling of an elevator does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, and the misleveling of the elevator in this case was caused by an instrumentality or agency within the defendants’ exclusive control and was not due to any voluntary action on plaintiff’s part. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to warrant submission of the case against the defendants to a jury on a theory of res ipsa loquitur … . Rojas v New York El. & Elec. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04043, 1st Dept 5-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)/EVIDENCE (RES IPSA LOQUTUR, MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)/ELEVATORS (NEGLIGENCE, MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)

,

TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this action stemming from the assault of plaintiff-tenant by an intruder. The intruder entered the building by “piggy-backing” on an entering tenant. There was evidence this particular intruder had entered the building the same way on other occasions when he had harassed and assaulted women:

Given the existence of an issue of fact as to foreseeability, an issue of fact also exists whether defendants discharged their common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect the tenants from the foreseeable harm… . In particular, in view of the previous incidents, issues of fact exist whether the security measures in place adequately protected female tenants from the risks posed and whether reasonable measures should have included, among others, warnings to tenants about the perpetrator, advising security staff of the perpetrator’s prior arrest in the complex, providing security staff and tenants with the perpetrator’s photograph, real-time monitoring of surveillance videos, or increasing the presence of lobby attendants, who were absent on the day of the assault. In other words, under the unique circumstances of this case, an issue is raised as to whether defendants, who had notice of this repeat intruder, took minimal security steps with respect to preventing his ability to easily access the interior of their buildings and attempt to sexually assault female tenants … .

Finally, an issue of fact exists whether any negligence on defendants’ part was a proximate cause of the assault … . The record shows that the perpetrator was able to gain entry into plaintiff’s building not as a guest but as an intruder; given defendants’ awareness of the practice of “piggy backing” in general and “piggy backing” by this perpetrator specifically, the tenant’s act of permitting the perpetrator to enter the building by “piggy backing” does not, as a matter of law, amount to a superseding intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between any deficient security and the assault on plaintiff … . Gonzalez v Riverbay Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04042, 1st Dept 5-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)/LANDLORD-TENANT (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE, TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)

, ,

MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact had been raised whether defendant bar (Danu) served the driver of the car in which plaintiff was injured when the driver was visibly intoxicated (Dram Shop Act). The court noted that defendant’s motion to renew its motion for summary judgment to correct a defect in the initial motion papers (the deposition transcripts were unsigned) was proper:

​

“CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . Here, Danu’s failure to provide signed copies of the deposition transcripts with the original summary judgment motion was tantamount to law office failure, which constituted a reasonable justification… . Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Danu’s motion which was for leave to renew. * * *

​

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Danu’s bartenders, who were not presented for deposition, served alcohol to the driver while he was visibly intoxicated. Proof of a high blood alcohol content does not, in and of itself, “provide a sound basis for drawing inferences about a person’s appearance or demeanor” … . Nonetheless, “[p]roof of visible intoxication can be established by circumstantial evidence, including expert and eyewitness testimony”… .

The plaintiff submitted a transcript of the driver’s plea of guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated and related crimes, which established that the driver recalled drinking “a few” mixed drinks prior to the accident and that his blood alcohol content was over .18%. The plaintiff also relies on a police report indicating that, after the accident, the driver was “observed to be intoxicated and placed under arrest.” Although Danu now argues that the police report is inadmissible, it submitted the report with its reply papers on the original motion. Thus, Danu waived any objection to its admissibility, and on appeal the plaintiff may rely upon the report in opposition to Danu’s summary judgment motion … . Trigoso v Correa, 2017 NY Slip Op 03983, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED))/DRAM SHOP ACT (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/EVIDENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted in this car-bus collision case. Plaintiff testified he had a green light. The bus driver (Puntarich) testified he had a green turn arrow. The jury found the bus driver negligent but his negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. The Second Department noted that, because of the conflicting factual allegations, a motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law could not be granted:

“A jury finding that a party was negligent but that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause'” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, as the finding that Puntarich’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident did not rest upon a fair interpretation of the credible evidence … . However, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law was properly denied, as issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff also was at fault in causing the accident … .  Mancini v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03939, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff driver, determined that, although plaintiff had the right of way, he did not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this car-bus collision case. A driver with the right of way still has the obligation to see what is there to be seen and to take evasive action:

​

Although the operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … , the operator with the right-of-way also has an obligation to keep a proper lookout to 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 plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault … .

Here, Mark [plaintiff] failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. In support of his motion and cross motion, Mark submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which raised triable issues of fact as to whether Mark failed to see what was there to be seen and failed to take evasive actions to avoid the collision between his vehicle and the bus… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion and cross motion without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . Mark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03940, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED

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