You are here: / Negligence

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN COLLISION WITH DRIVER WHO FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY.

The Fourth Department determined there was question of fact whether the driver of a car with the right of way (defendant) was comparatively negligent in striking a car (driven by Deering) which failed to yield the right of way at an intersection:

There is no dispute that Deering was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way or that defendant was entitled to anticipate that she would obey the traffic laws that required her to yield the right-of-way to him … . Nevertheless, in moving for summary judgment, defendant had the burden of establishing not only that Deering was negligent, but also that he was free of comparative fault … . Defendant failed to meet that burden, inasmuch as his own submissions raised triable issues of fact whether he was negligent … . At his deposition, defendant testified that he saw the Deering vehicle at the intersection after he traveled over an elevated overpass on Route 5 that is approximately 300 yards from the intersection, but he looked away and did not see the Deering vehicle before or at the moment of impact. “[I]t is well settled that drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident,’ ” and defendant’s admitted failure to see the Deering vehicle immediately prior to the accident raises an issue of fact whether he violated that duty … . Thus, even though defendant had the right-of-way as he approached Bayview Road, he “may nevertheless be found negligent if he . . . fail[ed] to use reasonable care when proceeding into the intersection’ . . . A driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection’ ” … . Deering v Deering, 2015 NY Slip Op 09715, 4th Dept 12-31-15

NEGLIGENCE (DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN STRIKING CAR WHICH FAILED TO YIELD)/RIGHT OF WAY (DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN STRIKING CAR WHICH FAILED TO YIELD)

,

EXPERT EVIDENCE OF A RECALL AND EVIDENCE OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN.

The Fourth Department, eliminating restrictions on the evidence imposed by Supreme Court, determined evidence from plaintiffs’ electrical expert and evidence of customer complaints were relevant to defendants’ duty to warn. Plaintiffs alleged an electrical defect in their motorcycle (manufactured by defendants) caused the accident. Plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of a recall made prior to the accident and evidence of customer complaints:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ electrical engineer expert and the customer complaints to the extent that such evidence is relevant to defendants’ continuing duty to warn. We therefore modify the order accordingly. “A manufacturer or retailer may . . . incur liability for failing to warn concerning dangers in the use of a product which come to his attention after manufacture or sale . . . through being made aware of later accidents involving dangers in the product of which warning should be given to users . . . Although a product [may] be reasonably safe when manufactured and sold and involve no then known risks of which warning need be given, risks thereafter revealed by user operation and brought to the attention of the manufacturer or vendor may impose upon one or both a duty to warn” … . “What notice . . . will trigger [this] postdelivery duty to warn appears to be a function of the degree of danger which the problem involves and the number of instances reported . . . [Whether] a prima facie case on that issue has been made will, of course, depend on the facts of each case” … .

Defendant’s recall was first issued in March 2004, prior to plaintiffs’ accident on April 30, 2004. A determination that plaintiffs’ motorcycle should have been included in the recall would be relevant to defendants’ duty to warn plaintiffs of the defect that, plaintiffs allege, caused a “quit while riding” event in their motorcycle and thereby caused or contributed to their accident. Plaintiffs’ expert, an electrical engineer, expects to testify in part that plaintiffs’ motorcycle does not differ in any material respect from those included in the 2004 recall, despite the fact that plaintiffs’ motorcycle did not have the same stator as the motorcycles affected by the recall. In our view, the expert’s qualifications as an electrical engineer qualify him to opine whether the motorcycles “were the same in all significant respects” … , and the fact that the expert has done no testing goes to the weight to be given to his testimony, not its admissibility … . Smalley v Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09712, 4th Dept 12-31-15

NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENDE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/DUTY TO WARN (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)

, ,

CLASS ACTION PROPERLY CERTIFIED IN CASE ALLEGING NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

In an action alleging defendants negligently discharged chemicals into the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction of property values and quality of life, the Fourth Department determined a class action was properly certified. The court explained the criteria:

“[A] class action may be maintained in New York only after the five prerequisites set forth in CPLR 901 (a) have been met, i.e., the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class as a whole, the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy” … . A plaintiff seeking class certification has the “burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901 (a) and thus establish[ing] . . . entitlement to class certification” … .

Although the individual class members may have sustained differing amounts of damages, it is well settled that ” the amount of damages suffered by each class member typically varies from individual to individual, but that fact will not prevent the suit from going forward as a class action if the important legal or factual issues involving liability are common to the class’ ” … . * * *

… [B]ecause “the typicality requirement relates to the nature of the claims and the underlying transaction, not the amount or measure of damages, [the fact that the class representative’s] damages may differ from those of other members of the class is not a proper basis to deny class certification” … . DeLuca v Tonawanda Coke Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09739, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTION PROPERLY CERTIFIED DESPITE DIFFERENCES IN DAMAGES)/CLASS ACTION (PROPERLY CERTIFIED DESPITE DIFFERENCES IN DAMAGES)/NEGLIGENCE (CLASS ACTION BASED ON DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (CLASS ACTION BASED ON DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE)

, , ,

RECORDINGS OF 911 CALLS RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CAR ACCIDENT DISCOVERABLE IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION.

In a matter of first impression at the appellate level, the Second Department determined the recordings of 911 calls relating to plaintiff’s decedent’s (Reece’s) car accident were discoverable. The wrongful death action was brought against the state alleging that a traffic counting device shattered when plaintiff’s decedent’s car drove over it, puncturing the gas tank and causing a fire which killed plaintiff’s decedent and two children. The claimant served a subpoena upon non-party county for the recordings and the county moved to quash the subpoena. The Second Department held that the motion to quash was properly denied:

The County moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that under County Law § 308(4), 911 recordings and documents are not discoverable by any entity or person other than certain designated public agencies and emergency medical providers. The claimant opposed the motion and thereafter moved to compel discovery of, inter alia, the 911 tapes, arguing that they were discoverable under CPLR 3101 as material and relevant matter. Specifically, the claimant argued that the material may be expected to reveal why Reece’s vehicle left the roadway, the length of time the vehicle’s occupants experienced conscious pain and suffering, and the amount of time it took for police to respond to the scene. * * *

We view the language of County Law § 308(4) as generally prohibiting entities and private individuals from accessing 911 tapes and records … . However, the statute is not intended to prohibit the disclosure of matter that is material and relevant in a civil litigation, accessible by a so-ordered subpoena or directed by a court to be disclosed in a discovery order … . Indeed, in analogous criminal practice, 911 tapes and records are frequently made available to individual defendants as part of the People’s disclosure obligations pursuant to People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286…) and are admitted at trials to describe events as present sense impressions of witnesses … , to identify perpetrators as present sense impressions … , or as excited utterances … . Clearly, the general language of County Law § 308(4), which is part of the statute governing the establishment of an emergency 911 system in various counties, cannot be interpreted as prohibiting court-ordered discovery of 911 material in civil litigation. Anderson v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09648, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/MUNICIPAL LAW (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/EVIDENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/WRONGFUL DEATH (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE)/911 TAPES (DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT SUBMITTED.

The Second Department determined defendants did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the cement patch over which plaintiff allegedly tripped was a trivial defect. The defendants did not submit evidence of the dimensions of the defect:

“[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . Photographs that fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and photographs which the plaintiff claimed accurately depicted the condition that allegedly caused her to fall. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the nonmovant … , the evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence was elicited as to the dimensions of the defect at the time of the accident. In light of the photographs, which depict the irregular nature of the sidewalk, as well as the time, place, and circumstance of the plaintiff’s fall, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the condition at issue was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Mazza v Our Lady of Perpetual Help R.C. Church, 2015 NY Slip Op 09657, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

NEGLIGENCE (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/EVIDENCE (CEMENT PATCH WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT)

,

STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, a high school varsity lacrosse player, assumed the risk of injury during lacrosse practice. Plaintiff alleged the goal was not properly covered by the net and his foot hit the base of the goal, causing him to twist his ankle and fall:

The assumption of risk doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities “is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” … . “An educational institution organizing a team sporting activity must exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect student athletes voluntarily participating in organized athletics from unassumed, concealed, or enhanced risks” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . This includes the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it … . * * *

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff assumed the risk by voluntarily participating in lacrosse practice where the condition of the goal was not concealed and clearly visible … . Safon v Bellmore-Merrick Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 09418, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

NEGLIGENCE (STUDENT ATHLETE ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT ATHLETE ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (STUDENT ATHLETE ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE)

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PREEXISTING SNOW AND ICE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FALL.

The Second Department determined the defendant met his burden of demonstrating a storm was in progress when plaintiff slipped and fell, but plaintiff then raised a question of fact whether snow and ice which was there prior to the storm was the cause of the fall:

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, including certified climatological data, a report from the plaintiffs’ own expert meteorologist, and the transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties, demonstrated, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the subject accident … . The plaintiffs do not contend otherwise.

Accordingly, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s fall was caused by something other than precipitation from the storm in progress … . In order to do so, the plaintiffs were “required to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where the [injured] plaintiff fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition” … . The plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact in this regard. The evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendant’s motion, which included the report of their expert meteorologist, certified climatological data, and the affidavits of the injured plaintiff and two nonparty witnesses, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff slipped and fell on old snow and ice that was the product of a prior storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and as to whether the defendant had constructive notice of the preexisting condition… . Burniston v Ranric Enters. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09395, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

NEGLIGENCE (DESPITE STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER PREEXISTING ICE AND SNOW WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DESPITE STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER PREEXISTING ICE AND SNOW WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FALL)/STORM IN PROGRESS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PREEXISTING ICE AND SNOW WAS CAUSE OF FALL)

SUPERMARKET EMPLOYEES HAD NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN A CAR IN THE SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT.

The Third Department determined employees of Tops supermarket did not have a duty to come to the aid of decedent, who died in his parked car in the Tops parking lot. Decedent and companions were drinking and doing drugs. When decedent was unconscious, his companions placed him in his own car and allegedly told Tops employees decedent was in need of emergency aid. The court held that the Tops employees did not have a legal duty to aid decedent:

“In any negligence action, the threshold issue before the court is whether the defendant owed a legally recognized duty to the plaintiff” … . This is frequently a “difficult task [and,] [d]espite often sympathetic facts in a particular case before them, courts must be mindful of the precedential, and consequential, future effects of their rulings, and limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree” … . Consonant with the premise that a moral duty does not equate with a legal duty … , it is the general rule that “one does not owe a duty to come to the aid of a person in peril” … . Exceptions to the general rule exist, such as, for example, a common carrier’s duty to take reasonable action to protect a passenger who is being assaulted … .

Here, although Tops was open to shoppers, this did not necessarily create an affirmative duty to come to the aid of anyone who was anywhere on its property no matter how unrelated such person’s presence was to Tops’ function as a grocery store. Decedent was not a customer of Tops, neither he nor his companions were on the premises for any activity related in any manner to Tops’ business, Tops’ employees did not participate in any fashion in the conduct of decedent’s companions, it is not alleged that Tops’ employees saw or had any contact with decedent on the premises, and Tops’ employees did not take any actions that put decedent in a worse position than the one in which his companions left him. Daily v Tops Mkts., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09336, 3rd Dept 12-17-15

NEGLIGENCE (NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT)/DUTY OF CARE (NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT)

WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT UPON THE TERMINATION OF TREATMENT CULMINATING IN THE IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED DONOR EGG.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a partial dissent, determined that plaintiffs’ action for wrongful birth accrued upon the birth of the child, not when the procedure implanting a fertilized donated egg was complete. The plaintiffs alleged that a donor egg was not adequately screened for genetic defects and that, in fact, a genetic defect in the egg was passed on to plaintiffs’ child:

This is a medical malpractice action for “wrongful birth” … , in which it is alleged that defendants’ failure to perform adequate genetic screening of an egg donor for an in vitro fertilization resulted in the conception and birth of plaintiffs’ impaired child. The primary question raised on this appeal is whether plaintiffs’ wrongful birth cause of action accrued upon the termination of defendants’ treatment of the plaintiff mother, less than two months after the implantation of the embryo, or upon the birth of the infant several months later. We hold that the wrongful birth claim accrued upon the birth of the infant and, therefore, was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a) when this action was commenced within 2½ years after the birth. * * *

In the case of a claim for wrongful birth, “the parents’ legally cognizable injury is the increased financial obligation” of raising an impaired child … , … . Whether this legally cognizable injury will befall potential parents as the result of the gestation of an impaired fetus cannot be known until the pregnancy ends. Only if there is a live birth will the injury be suffered. Thus, until there is a live birth, the existence of a cognizable legal injury that will support a wrongful birth cause of action cannot even be alleged . Without legally cognizable damages, there is no legal right to relief, and “the Statute of Limitations cannot run until there is a legal right to relief” … . Accordingly, the statute of limitations begins to run on a wrongful birth claim upon the live birth of an impaired child, whose care and support will occasion the pecuniary damages the parents may seek to recover. B.F. v Reproductive Medicine Assoc. of N.Y., LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 09370, 1st Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)/WRONGFUL BIRTH (CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)

,

DOCTORS, WHO ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECTS OF DRUGS, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE DRIVEN BY THE PATIENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Stein (in which Judge Abdus-Salaam concurred), determined a medical malpractice complaint alleging defendant hospital and doctors owed a duty of care to plaintiff, who was injured by a patient, should not have been dismissed. The patient was treated with drugs which could impair her ability to drive but allegedly was not warned of that effect by the treating doctors.  Shortly after leaving the hospital, the patient crossed a double yellow line and struck plaintiff's vehicle. The Court of Appeals held that the injured plaintiff's complaint, which alleged the negligent failure to warn the patient of the impairment of the ability to drive, stated a cause of action, sounding in medical malpractice, against the defendant hospital and doctors:

Here, put simply, to take the affirmative step of administering the medication at issue without warning [the patient] about the disorienting effect of those drugs was to create a peril affecting every motorist in [the patient's] vicinity. Defendants are the only ones who could have provided a proper warning of the effects of that medication. Consequently, on the facts alleged, we conclude that defendants had a duty to plaintiffs to warn [the patient] that the drugs administered to her impaired her ability to safely operate an automobile … . Davis v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09229, CtApp 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (DOCTORS OWED DUTY OF CARE TO PERSON INJURED BY DRUGGED PATIENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DOCTORS OWED DUTY OF CARE TO PERSON INJURED BY DRUGGED PATIENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTIVE (FAILURE TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECT OF ADMINISTERED DRUGS)

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