Opinion
October 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We find that the jury verdict in favor of the defendants is amply supported by the evidence adduced at trial. The record discloses that the defendant bus driver was faced with a sudden and unexpected obstacle, a young child who ran into the pathway of his moving bus. The presence of this child called for immediate action on the part of the driver and there is no evidence that he acted other than prudently in view of the circumstances with which he was confronted (see, Nieves v Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 31 A.D.2d 359, appeal dismissed 24 N.Y.2d 1030).
In Mintz v International Ry. Co. ( 227 N.Y. 197, 199), the Court of Appeals observed that: "[a]s between the act of stopping the car suddenly before it ran upon [the boy] and thereby shaking, displacing or jerking the passengers and the act of stopping it gradually and carefully and therein permitting it to run upon him, the defendant was bound by the commands of ordinary and reasonable prudence and care, as well as by the dictates of the right regard for human life, to adopt the former". As in Mintz, the instinctive reactions of the defendant driver in quickly applying his brakes and swerving, so as to avoid striking the child, could not fairly be denominated negligent or careless.
Plaintiff's remaining contentions have been considered and have been found to be without merit. The judgment in favor of defendants is accordingly affirmed. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.