You are here: / Negligence
,

Duty to Defend Versus Duty to Indemnify—Question of Fact About Whether Intentional Conduct Policy Exclusion Applies

The plaintiff’s vehicle had been struck from behind by one Schwartz.  Plaintiff drove his vehicle into Schwartz and left the scene. Plaintiff was charged criminally for those actions.  In the personal injury action brought by Schwartz against plaintiff, the defendant insurance company defended plaintiff.  A $25,000 judgment was entered against plaintiff. Plaintiff then sued defendant insurance company for indemnification ($25,000).  Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which was granted.  The Second Department reversed finding a question of fact had been raised by the insurer about whether plaintiff’s injuries were the result of his intentional conduct, a policy exclusion. In explaining the relevant law, the 1st Department wrote:

“While the duty to defend is measured against the possibility of a recovery, the duty to pay is determined by the actual basis for the insured’s liability to a third person” … . The burden to establish coverage and a duty to indemnify lies with the insured … . However, the insurer has the burden of proving facts establishing that the loss falls within an exclusionary clause of the insurance policy … .  * * *  [Here] …the insurer submitted evidence from the criminal prosecution and the underlying personal injury action, including Schwartz’s deposition testimony, which raised a triable issue of fact whether the loss fell within a policy exclusion for bodily injury “intentionally” caused by the insured…Dryer v New York Cent Mut Fire Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 03056, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, REAR-END COLLISIONS

Emergency Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant Bus Company

The plaintiff, a bus passenger, was injured when the bus stopped quickly and she fell to the floor.  The Transit Authority moved for summary judgment under the emergency doctrine, submitting evidence the bus driver stopped to avoid a collision with a car that cut in front of the bus.  In granting summary judgment, the Second Department described the emergency doctrine as follows:

Through the emergency doctrine, the law recognizes ” that 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’ … .

“Although the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of the response to it generally present issues of fact for purposes of application of the emergency doctrine …, those issues may in appropriate circumstances be determined as a matter of law” …. Marri v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 03065, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , ,

Transit Authority Employee Properly Found Negligent In Not Summoning Help for Police Officers Injured While Making an Arrest in a Subway Station

The First Department reinstated a verdict in favor of police officers who were injured in the course of making as arrest in a subway station. As the officer chased the suspect, he asked a New York City Transit Authority employee to call for police back up.  The theory of the case was that the employee negligently did not call for back up. The trial judge granted the Transit Authority’s motion for judgment finding the employee was under no duty to call for assistance.  In reversing, the First Department wrote:

Public Authorities Law § 1212(3) imposes liability upon the Transit Authority for the negligence of its employees in the operation of the subway system. Although it is a common carrier, the Transit Authority is held to a duty of ordinary care under the particular circumstances of each case …. In Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth. (68 NY2d 165 [1986]), the Court of Appeals held that the Transit Authority could be held liable for the negligent failure of its employees to summon aid as they watched a gang of thugs fatally assault a passenger. As the Court stated, “Watching someone being beaten from a vantage point offering both safety and the means to summon help without danger is within the narrow range of circumstances which could be found to be actionable” (id. at 170 [citation omitted]). The trial court held that Crosland had no application here because plaintiffs were police officers. This was error.

The broad definition of onlooker liability articulated by the Crosland Court does not lend itself to any exception based upon an injured party’s status as a police officer. To be sure, General Obligations Law § 11-106 gives police officers as well as firefighters, who are injured in the line of duty, a distinct right of action against tortfeasors that cause such injuries. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ recovery is not barred by their status as police officers and the Transit Authority’s liability was established at trial. The Transit Authority also argues that the evidence did not establish that a timely response on Corbin’s part would have prevented plaintiffs’ injuries. We decline to consider this argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would find it unavailing. Filippo v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 03025, 1st Dept, 4-30-13

 

 

, ,

Verdict for Negligent Design Upheld—1987 Car Did Not Have a Starter Interlock Device that Would Prevent Car from Starting When In Gear

The First Department determined a motion to set aside a verdict in a negligent design case was properly denied.  The jury found the car manufacture negligent in not installing a device (starter interlock device) such that the car (1987) car could not be started when it was in gear.  The First Department wrote:

The trial court properly instructed the jury that in determining the negligent design claim it first had to decide whether, from the evidence at trial, there was a general custom or practice by automobile manufacturers selling manual transmission vehicles in the United States in 1987. The proof adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a jury to conclude that the practice was fairly well defined in the car manufacturing industry. Plaintiffs were not required to prove universal application of the practice in order for the jury to consider this question … . The court further properly instructed the jury that if there was such a custom and practice, it could be considered along with all of the other facts and circumstances, in determining whether Volvo had exercised reasonable care … . From all of the evidence in the record, including the experts’ testimony, the jury reasonably concluded that defendants were negligent in failing to use a starter interlock device in its vehicle …. The trial court correctly denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict because there was sufficient evidence supporting plaintiffs’ negligent design claim. Reis… v Volvo…, 2013 NY Slip Op 03024, 1st Dept, 4-30-13

 

, ,

Grant of Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Upheld

Plaintiff, a British citizen, was injured in England when he was a passenger on an all-terrain vehicle manufactured by a New York company, RII.  The Fourth Department affirmed the grant of RII’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens) and to have the proceeding moved to England.  Plaintiffs’ objections that contingency-fee arrangements are not allowed in England and loss of consortium damages are not recognized in England did not warrant denial of the motion.  The Fourth Department wrote:

…[T]he court properly determined that “the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere” …. Plaintiffs are both British citizens residing in Scotland. The accident occurred in England, and other witnesses, including the driver of the ATV, are located there. As the trial court in the federal action between the same parties noted, “highly material evidence, such as the eyewitness testimony, accident investigation documents and witnesses, the scene of the accident, and the vehicle itself, which will not be readily within plaintiffs’ control in this court, would be more accessible to both sides in a British forum” ….  Moreover, RII is amenable to service of process in Scotland or England, and it does not take issue with the conditions imposed by the court concerning the waiver of defenses based on jurisdiction and the statute of limitations.  Emslie v Recreative Industries, Inc., CA 12-01246, 139, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, , ,

In Lead Paint Exposure Case, Court’s Order to Provide Medical Report Linking Injuries to Exposure Before Depositions Upheld

In a case which alleged plaintiff was injured by lead paint exposure, Supreme Court ordered plaintiff, as part of discovery, to produce a medical report linking the injuries to lead exposure before depositions.  The Fourth Department affirmed over a dissent which argued plaintiff was improperly being forced to hire an expert at the very outset of the litigation:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its broad discretion in directing plaintiff to produce a medical report containing a diagnosis of the alleged injuries sustained by plaintiff and causally relating such injuries to lead exposure before any CPLR 3121 examinations are conducted.  As previously noted, plaintiff alleges numerous and wide- ranging neurological, physiological, psychological, educational, and occupational effects of his childhood exposure to lead. Although plaintiff disclosed his medical and educational records, none of those records diagnoses plaintiff with a lead-related injury or causally relates any of plaintiff’s alleged physical or mental conditions to lead exposure. Indeed, plaintiff’s mother testified at her deposition that no health care provider had ever told her that plaintiff had “any residual injuries from lead exposure.” The only reference in the disclosed records to an injury that may have been caused by exposure to lead is a school district health and development assessment, which states that “[e]levated [blood] lead level may have had an effect” on plaintiff’s educational performance. Although the dissent is correct that CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17 do not require the disclosure directed in this case, they likewise do not preclude a trial judge from proceeding in the manner at issue herein. Giles v A. Gi Yi, et al, CA 12-01288, 59, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Criteria for Negligent Misrepresentation Action

In reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss an action for negligent misrepresentation concerning the underwriting of mortgage loans, the Fourth Department determined plaintiff had not demonstrated the requisite “privity-like” relationship:

A cause of action for negligent misrepresentation must allege “ ‘(1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information’ ”… . In this case, we agree … that plaintiffs failed to allege the requisite special relationship between it and plaintiff …to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation … .  Flaherty Funding Corporation … v Johnson …, CA 12-02018, 427, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Plaintiff Need Not Exclude Every Other Possible Cause of an Accident to Demonstrate Proximate Cause

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant because of an alleged inability of the plaintiff to establish proximate cause, the Fourth Department determined the plaintiff need not exclude every possible cause of the accident other than the defendant’s acts or omissions:

In order to establish proximate cause, “[p]laintiffs need not positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident. Rather, the proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence . . . A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely . . . or more reasonable . . . that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … . Furthermore, it is well settled that, in seeking summary judgment dismissing a complaint, a defendant “must affirmatively establish the merits of its . . . defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … .  New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal… v Casella Construction, Ind, CA 12-02094, 399, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Her Injuries Were Related to a Preexisting Condition

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department reversed the motion court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendant in an automobile-accident personal injury action.  The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had not raised a question of fact in response to the proof submitted by defendant that her injuries were linked to a preexisting condition, and not the accident:

“[E]ven where there is objective medical proof [of a serious injury], when additional contributory factors interrupt the chain of causation between the accident and claimed injury—such as a gap in treatment, an intervening medical problem or a preexisting condition—summary dismissal of the complaint may be appropriate” …. Here, defendants met their initial burden on the motion with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use, significant limitation of use, and 90/180-day categories by offering “persuasive evidence that plaintiff’s alleged pain and injuries were related to a preexisting condition” … .  Kwitek… v Seier…, CA 12-01607, 352, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

Question of Fact About Defect In Diving Board Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Primary Assumption of Risk

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped from a diving board at defendant’s pool.  In finding a question of fact had been raised about whether there existed a concealed or unreasonably increased risk on the surface of the diving board, the Fourth Department explained the applicable law:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk “generally constitutes a complete defense to an action to recover damages for personal injuries . . . and applies to the voluntary participation in sporting activities” .. . Under that doctrine, “a person who voluntarily participates in a sporting activity generally consents, by his or her participation, to those injury-causing events, conditions[] and risks [that] are inherent in the activity” … . The owner of recreational premises owes a duty “to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . A plaintiff, however, will not be deemed to have consented to “concealed or unreasonably increased risks” … . Thus, in assessing whether the relevant duty has been breached, it must be determined “whether the conditions caused by the defendant[’s] negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … . Menter v City of Olean, CA 12-01304, 308, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

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