You are here: / Negligence
,

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Where Defendant Crossed Into Her Lane Attempting to Make a Left Turn

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff (Daniels) whose car was struck head-on by defendant (Rumsey), whose car crossed into plaintiff’s lane attempting to make a left turn into a parking lot, was entitled to summary judgment, even though plaintiff may have been driving five miles an hour above the speed-limit:

…[W]e conclude that the court properly granted Daniels’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against her.  Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, “[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left . . . into . . . [a] private road[] or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” To meet her initial burden on her motion, Daniels was required “to establish both that [Rumsey’s] vehicle suddenly entered the lane where [Daniels] was operating [her vehicle] in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing [Daniels] could have done to avoid the collision” … .  Daniels met that burden by submitting evidence that the accident occurred after Rumsey turned her vehicle left into Daniels’s path of travel in the southbound curb lane of Delaware Avenue, that Daniels had the right-of-way, and that Daniels was proceeding at a speed of between 30 and 35 miles per hour at the time of the accident, i.e., no more than five miles per hour above the posted speed limit.  Daniels also established that she did not see Rumsey’s vehicle until its grill was in her lane of travel, and that she had only “[f]ractions of a second” to take evasive measures, which proved unsuccessful.  Contrary to Rumsey’s contention, the fact that Daniels may have been driving at a speed in excess of five miles per hour over the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour is inconsequential inasmuch as there is no indication that she could have avoided the accident even if she had been traveling at a speed at or below the posted speed limit … . Daniels v Rumsey, 1168, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

, ,

Admissibility of Medical Records as Business Records Does Not Preclude Evidentiary Objections to Admission

In the context of a personal injury case, the Fourth Department noted that the failure to object to the admissibility of medical records within 10 days (CPLR 3122-a [c]) did not render the documents automatically admissible:

Defendants contend that the court erred in denying their request at the commencement of trial to admit all of plaintiff’s medical records in evidence pursuant to CPLR 3122-a (c).  According to defendants, the records were automatically admissible because plaintiff raised no objection within 10 days of trial (see id.).  We reject that contention.  Plaintiff’s failure to object within 10 days before the trial waived any objection plaintiff had to the admissibility of the records as business records (see CPLR 3122-a [c]; 4518 [a]), but he did not waive any objection to their admissibility based on other rules of evidence … .  Indeed, plaintiff properly objected at trial on relevancy grounds with respect to the admissibility of some of the records… . Siemucha v Garrison…, 1145, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

,

Contractor May Be Liable to Noncontracting Third Party If Area Made Less Safe by Contractor’s Work

The Fourth Department reinstated a claim for contribution by the owner of a parking lot (Piedmont) against the contractor (Bach) hired to raze structures and fill in all holes.  Plaintiff was injured when his foot fell through a hole into a hidden vault below:

We conclude that Bach met its initial burden on its motion with respect to the claim for contribution by establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that claim … .  Specifically, Bach established as a matter of law “that the injured plaintiff was not a party to [the] contract . . . and that it thus owed no duty of care to the injured plaintiff” … .  In opposition, however, Piedmont raised triable issues of fact to defeat that part of the motion.  Although plaintiff was a noncontracting third party with respect to the construction contract between Bach and Piedmont, Bach may still be liable if, “in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, [it] ‘launche[d] a force or instrument of harm’ ” … , or otherwise made the area “less safe than before the construction project began” … .  Here, there are issues of fact whether Bach negligently filled in the vault only partially, and concealed its existence, thereby creating a force or instrument of harm or otherwise making the area less safe than before the demolition project began … . Paro v Piedmont Land and Cattle, LLC…, 1189, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

, ,

Causes of Action Stated Against County for Allowing Public Traffic During Paving Operation and Violation of Regulation Requiring Truck-Brake Maintenance

The Third Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action sounding in negligence and a violation of Labor Law 241(6).  Plaintiff was driving a truck hauling asphalt to a county roadway paving operation (which had been contracted out to a private company–Graymont) when the truck’s brakes failed. Plaintiff was seriously injured when, after avoiding public traffic, he jumped from the truck which continued on over an embankment. The court upheld the negligence claim against the county which was based upon the county’s permitting public traffic on the road during construction.  The court further determined the county was entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification action against the private construction company (Graymont—based upon the county’s contract with the company). And the court upheld the Labor Law 241(6) claim, finding the regulation requiring truck-brake maintenance supported the cause of action:

Plaintiff alleges that the County violated 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (a),  which provides that “[t]he brakes of every motor truck shall be so maintained that such truck with full load may be securely held on any grade that may be encountered in normal use on the job.”  While the County does not dispute that this provision is sufficiently specific to form the basis for liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), it argues that the regulation is not applicable to the circumstances here.  Mindful that “[t]he Industrial Code should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” …, we cannot agree.  Although the regulation speaks in terms of the ability of the brakes to “h[o]ld” the construction vehicle, the purpose of the regulation is to ensure proper functioning of a truck’s brakes on any terrain or grade normally encountered.  Thus, we find that the language of the regulation addresses not only the ability of a truck’s brakes to hold a stopped truck in place, but also the ability of the brakes to bring a moving vehicle to a stop. Duffina v County of Essex…, 515346, 3rd Dept 11-14-13

 

,

Abutting Property Owner Did Not Have a Duty to Maintain Crowd Control Barriers Placed on Sidewalk by City

The Second Department determined abutting property owners had no duty to maintain crowd control barriers erected by the City on sidewalks during the holiday season.  Therefore, plaintiff, who was allegedly injured tripping over a barrier, did not have a cause of action against the abutting property owner:

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality, and not the abutting landowner … . However, an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a sidewalk where the landowner created the defect, caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk … . “Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner” … . Legislative enactment in derogation of the common law which creates liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed … .

Under the circumstances presented here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the barrier at issue, which was part of a long chain of barriers erected by the NYPD as part of its crowd control measures during the holiday season, was not part of the “sidewalk” for purposes of liability under Administrative Code § 7-210 … . Accordingly, Administrative Code § 7-210 is inapplicable and the defendant had no duty to maintain the barriers. Staruch v 1328 Broadway Owners, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07467, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case

In a rear-end collision case, the Second Department affirmed summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on liability.  The accident occurred when the weather was clear and the roads dry:

“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” … . A conclusory assertion by the operator of the following vehicle that the sudden stop of the vehicle caused the accident is insufficient, in and of itself, to provide a nonnegligent explanation … . The issue of comparative fault will be left for a jury to determine only where there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the frontmost driver also operated his or her vehicle in a negligent manner … . However, ” [v]ehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead’… . Gutierrez v Trillium USA, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07450, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

Defendant Failed to Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice of Condition; Did Not Present Evidence of Last Inspection of Area Where Slip and Fall Occurred

In a slip and fall case, the Second Department noted defendants’ failure to demonstrate when the area where the fall occurred had last been inspected:

By failing to demonstrate when the area where the plaintiff fell was last inspected in relation to the accident, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition described by the plaintiff … . Further, the defendants, by merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof, rather than affirmatively demonstrating the merit of their defense, failed to carry their burden as movants seeking summary judgment on the issue of whether the condition complained of did in fact constitute a defect… . Griffin v JK Chopra Holding LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07448, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

“Sudden Stopping” and “Emergency Doctrine” Jury Instructions Proper in Rear-End Collision Case

Plaintiff was rear-ended by defendant [Dellapenta] on a clear, windy day when blowing snow caused a temporary whiteout. The jury returned a verdict of no cause for action.  The Fourth Department determined the jury was properly given the “sudden stopping” charge and the emergency doctrine:

While plaintiff claimed that he was forced to stop due to the actions of the vehicle ahead of him …, Dellapenta testified that plaintiff did not slow down before the whiteout, he did not see any vehicles ahead of plaintiff, plaintiff’s vehicle was completely stopped in the whiteout, he never saw plaintiff’s brake or hazard lights, and plaintiff told Dellapenta after the accident that he stopped because he could not see.  Thus, the issue whether plaintiff “stopped suddenly, without an apparent reason to do so,” was properly submitted to the jury … .

We reject plaintiff’s further contention that the court erred in instructing the jury on the emergency doctrine (see PJI 2:14) inasmuch as, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants, a reasonable view of the evidence supported the conclusion that a sudden and temporary whiteout constituted a qualifying emergency … .  Although Dellapenta had previously experienced whiteouts … at that location, such experience does not negate the applicability of the emergency doctrine “as to the events in issue in this case” … . Barnes v Dellapente…, 1039, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

Emergency Doctrine Precluded Action on Behalf of Driver of Car Which Crossed Into On-Coming Lane of Traffic; ”Noseworthy” Doctrine Did Not Apply to Reduce Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Burden of Proof

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and granted summary judgment to defendant who was struck when plaintiff’s decedent’s on-coming car crossed into defendant’s lane.  The court determined the “Noseworthy” rule (lowering the plaintiff’s burden of proof) did not apply and the emergency doctrine precluded recovery:

Under the emergency doctrine, “ ‘when [a driver] is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes [the driver] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he or she] must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the [driver] may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context, provided the [driver] has not created the emergency’ ” … .  It is well established that a driver is “not required to anticipate that [a] vehicle, traveling in the opposite direction, [will] cross over into his [or her] lane of travel” … .

Here, defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the emergency doctrine applied, inasmuch as they established that decedent’s vehicle unexpectedly crossed over into defendant’s lane of travel, defendant had been operating his vehicle in a lawful and prudent manner, and defendant had little time to react to avoid the collision … .  Although “it generally remains a question for the trier of fact to determine whether an emergency existed and, if so, whether the [driver’s] response was reasonable” …, we conclude that summary judgment is appropriate here because defendants presented “sufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of [defendant’s] actions [in an emergency situation] and there is no opposing evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a legitimate question of fact”… . Shanahan… v Mackowiak…, 1105, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

, , , ,

“Patient/Visitor Occurrence Report” Not Statutorily Privileged in Malpractice Action Against Hospital

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiffs, in a medical malpractice action, to see a “patient/visitor occurrence report” generated by defendant hospital.  The court noted that the report is subject to the privilege set forth in Education Law 6527 (3), but the hospital did not establish the report was generated in connection with a quality assurance review or a malpractice prevention program:

…[T]he hospital failed to meet its burden of establishing that the report was “generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-j” … .  Moreover, with respect to the privilege set forth in Public Health Law § 2805-j, we deem the conclusory statement in the affidavit submitted by the hospital’s director of risk management that “[t]he report was prepared solely and exclusively in connection with the hospital’s malpractice prevention program, as required by statute” to be insufficient to meet the hospital’s burden of demonstrating that the form was actually generated at the behest of the hospital’s malpractice prevention program.  Slayton … v Kolli…, 1083, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

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