You are here: / Vehicle and Traffic Law
, ,

Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law), the Verdict In Favor of the Defendant Was Properly Set Aside

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly set aside the defendant’s verdict in a vehicle collision case:

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . “It is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … .

Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that the defendant was not negligent. The defendant testified that, when she was stopped at the intersection, her view to her left, the direction from which the injured plaintiff was coming, was obstructed, yet she proceeded anyway. The fact that the defendant proceeded into the intersection without having a clear view of the traffic on Wilson Avenue and without yielding the right-of-way after a stop sign demonstrated that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a) … . Such violations constitute negligence as a matter of law, and could not properly be disregarded by the jury … . Consequently, on these facts, the jury could not have reached its verdict that the defendant was not negligent on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Zhubrak v Petro, 2014 NY Slip Op 08332, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined that plaintiff did not raise a question of fact concerning whether defendant police officer exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others when the officer responded to an urgent call by driving against traffic on a one-way street.  While on the one-way street the officer collided with another police vehicle driven by the plaintiff (another police officer) who was responding to the same call.  The court noted that the defendant had activated his emergency lights and was travelling at 15 to 20 miles an hour when the collision occurred:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 grants the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle special driving privileges when involved in an emergency operation. Those privileges include passing through red lights and stop signs, exceeding the speed limit and disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [a], [b]). But drivers of emergency vehicles are not relieved of their duty to drive “with due regard for the safety of all persons” and section 1104 does not “protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]).

This “reckless disregard” standard demands “more than a showing of a lack of ‘due care under the circumstances’—–the showing typically associated with ordinary negligence claims” … . Rather, for liability to be predicated upon a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, there must be evidence that “‘the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (id., quoting Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 34, at 213 [5th ed]). This heightened standard is grounded in the Legislature’s recognition that, although the exercise of the privileges granted in section 1104 may increase the risks to pedestrians and other drivers, emergency personnel “should be afforded a qualified privilege to disregard [certain traffic] laws where necessary to carry out their important responsibilities” … . This approach avoids “judicial ‘second-guessing’ of the many split-second decisions that are made in the field under highly pressured conditions” and mitigates the risk that possible liability could “deter emergency personnel from acting decisively and taking calculated risks in order to save life or property or to apprehend miscreants” … . Frezzell v City of New York, 2014 NY slip Op 08055, CtApp 11-20-14

 

, , ,

Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Not Have Been Granted/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Established Negligence as a Matter of Law/Striking of Affirmative Defense Based on Brake Failure Proper Because Brakes Were Replaced (Spoliation of Evidence)/Fact that Defendant-Driver’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of the Accident As a Matter of Law Did Not Preclude Comparative Negligence Affirmative Defense

The defendant driver of a payloader struck a school bus and a personal injury action was brought by plaintiff, a school aide who was on the bus.  The Fourth Department determined defendants’ late motion to amend the answer should not have been granted, the striking of an affirmative defense based upon brake failure was properly struck because the original brakes had been replaced (spoliation), defendant-driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1143 established negligence as a matter of law, and the affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion [to amend the answer], and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The motion was made seven months after plaintiff had filed the note of issue and more than two years after she commenced the action, yet defendants offered no excuse for their delay in making the motion … . We further conclude that preclusion of the affirmative defenses based on brake failure is warranted as a sanction for spoliation … . After the accident, Cerrone replaced the payloader’s allegedly defective brake calipers and discarded the old calipers. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 provides that “[t]he driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.” Here, plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that ” the sole proximate cause of the accident was [Freeman]’s failure to yield the right of way’ ” to the school bus in violation of section 1143 … . At the time of the accident, the school bus was lawfully stopped on a public roadway, and the payloader collided with the school bus after entering the roadway from a parking lot … . In opposition to the motion, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . * * *

…T]he court erred in dismissing their affirmative defense of plaintiff’s culpable conduct, and we therefore further modify the order by reinstating that affirmative defense. CPLR 1411 provides that, “[i]n any action to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . , including contributory negligence . . . , shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” The statute encompasses any culpable conduct that had a “substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery is sought” … . Here, as the court found, there is no question that the sole proximate cause of the accident was defendants’ negligence. Defendants contend, however, that the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained in the accident were caused, in whole or in part, by her position on the bus, i.e., the fact that she was kneeling or standing on the bus rather than sitting in a seat, and they submitted an expert affirmation to that effect … . Simoneit v Mark Cerrone Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07783, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Plaintiff-Passenger’s Injury In an Illegal Drag-Race Not Actionable—Under the Facts, Public Policy Precluded Plaintiff from Bringing Suit

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that a complaint brought by a passenger, who was a willing participate in illegal drag-racing, against the drivers and other passengers involved, was properly dismissed.  Plaintiff was injured when the car he was in crashed during the race:

“[A]s a matter of public policy, . . . where a plaintiff has engaged in unlawful conduct, the courts will not entertain suit if the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a serious violation of the law and the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks recovery are the direct result of that violation” … . Plaintiff urges that this rule of law is inapplicable because he was merely a passenger and also because some of the defendants indicated during disclosure that they did not consider themselves to be racing. As for the latter argument, plaintiff controls the theory of his case and he has not wavered from his contention that a high-speed drag race was in progress — an allegation made in his complaint, bills of particulars, proposed amended complaint, affidavits submitted in the underlying motions and about which he testified in detail at his deposition. Supreme Court did not err in accepting plaintiff’s admitted conduct in such regard … .

The fact that a plaintiff’s injuries occurred in the course of unlawful conduct does not mandate dismissal …, but instead the violation of law must be “sufficiently serious” to support such an extreme result, and this determination necessarily implicates “due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances” … . Here, plaintiff testified that he knew Eastman had been drinking beer all day, plaintiff participated in banter regarding racing and he vouched for Eastman’s truck as the fastest. Plaintiff stated that he entered the truck knowing a race was about to start, the truck and the vehicle driven by Losaw revved engines at a starting point on the road with yelling back and forth, and plaintiff never suggested that Eastman not proceed to race. In fact, once the race started, he even made comments urging Eastman to go faster so as not to be defeated in the race. Shortly thereafter, Eastman lost control of the truck. Estimated speeds during the race exceeded 100 miles per hour. Plaintiff was very familiar with the road, acknowledged racing on it previously and described it as “pretty curvy,” “surface isn’t even,” “potholes, bumps” and “not much shoulder.”

Racing side by side at over 100 miles per hour in the dark on a two-lane rural road under the circumstances of this case constitutes the type of grossly reckless conduct that created a grave risk to the public … . Hathaway v Eastman, 2014 NY Slip Op 07533, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

,

Presumption Vehicle Was Operated with Owner’s Consent Not Overcome—Defendant Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the unknown driver of defendant’s vehicle did not have the defendant’s consent to operate the vehicle:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s express or implied permission … . The defendant, on its motion for summary judgment, has the burden of demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Thus, to obtain summary judgment on its defense that the vehicle was used without its permission, the defendant was required to present substantial evidence that the vehicle was used without its permission … . “The uncontradicted testimony of a vehicle owner that the vehicle was operated without his or her permission, does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use” … . The question of consent is ordinarily one for the jury … . Ultimately, “whether summary judgment is warranted depends on the strength and plausibility of the disavowals [of permission], and whether they leave room for doubts that are best left for the jury” …

Here, the defendant failed to sufficiently rebut the strong presumption that the driver was operating the subject vehicle with its permission. The deposition testimony of the defendant and some, but not all, of its employees that the driver only had permission to drive the vehicle for work-related purposes did not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use … . In addition, the defendant failed to establish that the vehicle was stolen … . Han v BJ Laura & Son Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07480, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Although Not the Case Here, the Court Explained How a Collision Between a Vehicle Entering the Roadway and a Vehicle Which Is In the Roadway (and Has the Right-of-Way) Can Possibly Have Two Proximate Causes

The Second Department determined the defendant, who apparently struck plaintiff’s car as plaintiff pulled into traffic from a parking lot, was entitled to summary judgment.  Plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law based on a violation of Vehicle and Traffic law 1143, which requires a driver entering a roadway to yield to drivers within the right-of-way.  And there was no showing defendant was negligent.  The decision has a good explanation of how there can be two proximate causes of an accident under such facts (not the case here):

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident …, because each driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident … . As a result, even where there is evidence that another driver involved in the accident was negligent as a matter of law due to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, “the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” … . Thus, a driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found to have contributed to the happening of the accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident … . However, “[a] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle that has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . Desio v Cerebral Palsy Transp Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07322, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

, ,

Review Criteria Re: Nonjury Trials Explained/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law, Including the Provision Requiring the Exercise of Care to Avoid Colliding with Bicyclists, Constituted Negligence Per Se

The Third Department affirmed a verdict in a nonjury trial finding a state trooper 70% responsible for injuries caused when the trooper’s car collided with plaintiff bicyclist.  The court explained its review powers re: a nonjury trial and noted that the trooper’s violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law, including the provision requiring the exercise of care to avoid colliding with a bicyclist, constituted negligence per se:

When reviewing a determination after a nonjury trial, this Court independently considers the weight of the evidence and may grant whatever judgment is warranted by the record, all while deferring to the trial judge’s factual findings, especially where those findings are based on credibility determinations … . * * *

After weighing the eyewitness and expert testimony and considering it along with the physical evidence, the court determined that the collision occurred in claimant’s lane of travel, meaning that the trooper crossed at least somewhat into claimant’s lane in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 (a). “[A]n unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . The court also reasonably determined that the trooper was negligent in cutting the corner while making his left turn, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (b)… . Considering the trooper’s testimony that he never saw claimant until the moment of impact, along with evidence regarding the ample sight distance at the intersection and the legal concept that every driver has a duty to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses …., the court properly found that the trooper was additionally negligent for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 (a), which requires drivers to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist” … . Smith v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07229, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

,

Rear-End Collision Liability Explained

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in a rear-end collision case should have been granted.  The court explained the relevant analysis:

The driver of an automobile is required to maintain a safe distance between his or her own vehicle and the vehicle in front of him or her (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Once the movant has established his or her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to provide sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the moving party’s comparative fault … . A bare allegation that the lead vehicle stopped short is insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence on the part of the driver of the following vehicle … . Cheow v Cheng Lin Jin, 2014 NY Slip Op 07337, 2nd Dept 10-214

 

,

Although Title Had Not Yet Formally Passed to the Driver/Owner, the Vehicle Was Covered as a “Newly Acquired” Vehicle Under the Terms of the Policy

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the insurer could not disclaim coverage of a 1987 Dodge driven by Porter under the terms of the policy.  Porter was driving the vehicle before receiving the title documents from the seller, Elmore:

We consider first whether coverage extended to the 1987 Dodge under the provision for “[a] private passenger auto newly acquired by you.” [The insurer] contended, and Supreme Court held, that this provision did not apply because Porter had not yet received title or registered the Dodge under the Uniform Vehicle Certificate of Title Act (see Vehicle and Traffic Law art 46). The term “newly acquired” is not defined in the policy and, importantly, it is not limited by the policy to completed transactions that were done in full compliance with the Certificate of Title Act. Ownership of a motor vehicle generally passes “when the parties intend that it pass” … .

Here, it is undisputed that, during the month before the accident, Porter had disposed of his 1994 Chevrolet truck and, shortly thereafter, replaced it by trading his ATV (which he had recently purchased for $1,000) to Elmore for the 1987 Dodge. Although Elmore apparently indicated to Porter after the accident that the Dodge was actually owned by his girlfriend’s father, there was no indication that Elmore did not have authority from the owner to make the transaction. At the time of the transaction, Elmore took possession of the ATV and likewise Porter took absolute possession and control of the Dodge, including all of the keys. According to Porter, the trade was final and permanent. Porter testified that Elmore was about to produce documents so he could register the Dodge, but the accident occurred the day before Elmore was going to give him the documents. Nonetheless, upon taking physical possession of the Dodge, Porter had placed the plates from his junked truck on the Dodge and began using it to drive to work. Under the circumstances and considering the pertinent policy language in light of “the reasonable expectations of the average insured” …, the 1987 Dodge fell within the meaning of replacement auto newly acquired by Porter at the time of the accident and, accordingly, was covered under plaintiff’s policy. Nationwide Ins Co of Am v Porter, 2014 NY Slip Op 07029, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, , ,

Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)

In a case involving a pedestrian who was lawfully crossing a street when struck by an ambulance responding to an emergency, in the presence of a city employee acting as a crossing guard, the Second Department determined that ordinary negligence standards applied to the ambulance (not the “emergence” “reckless disregard” standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104) and that there were questions of fact whether the city was liable based upon a “special relationship” with the plaintiff and whether the city was liable because the crossing guard was performing ministerial, rather than discretionary, functions:

Failure to abide by the provisions set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111 (duty to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk) and 1112 (pedestrian has right of way), which was the injury-causing conduct at issue here, is not privileged conduct pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b). As the injury-producing conduct was not specifically exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the principles of ordinary negligence apply … . * * *

“To impose liability [upon a municipality], there must be a duty that runs from the municipality to the plaintiff. We have recognized a narrow class of cases in which a duty is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . One of the ways that a special relationship arises is when the municipality “assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty” … . * * *

Further, “[g]overnment action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff apart from any duty to the public in general” … . Here, the City defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the basis that the crossing guard’s actions were discretionary. Based on their submissions in support of their cross motion, and under the circumstances here, the City defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the crossing guard’s actions constituted ministerial governmental functions … . Benn v New York Presbyt Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05615, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

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