From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Econ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1995
221 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Summary

applying the emergency doctrine where the defendant faced “an instantaneous cross-over emergency,” and “had only a fraction of a second to react”

Summary of this case from Pelletier v. Lahm

Opinion

November 13, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff and the defendant were travelling in opposite directions on Northern Boulevard in Queens, New York, when the plaintiff's vehicle crossed over a double yellow line and cross-hatched safety zone, entered the defendant's lane and collided with his car head-on. The defendant noticed the oncoming vehicle a fraction of a second before impact and responded by jamming on his brakes. There was no time to sound his horn. The plaintiff had no recollection of how the accident happened, claiming that she suffered from amnesia as a result of the injuries sustained. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. We now reverse.

"While negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by motion for summary judgment, such a motion will be granted where, as here, the facts clearly point to the negligence of one party without any fault or culpable conduct by the other party" (Morowitz v Naughton, 150 A.D.2d 536, 537, citing Viegas v Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708). It is axiomatic that a driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile going in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic (see, Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 A.D.2d 660). A cross-over scenario, as presented in this case, presents an emergency situation and the actions of a driver presented with such a sudden occurrence must be judged in that context (see, Glick v City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 677, 678).

Here, the defendant was presented with an instantaneous cross-over emergency, not of his own making, and had only a fraction of a second to react. Under no obligation to exercise his best judgment, the defendant applied his brakes and any error in his judgment is not sufficient to constitute negligence (see, Moller v Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434, 435). Clearly, the plaintiff's acts were the sole proximate cause of the accident while the defendant was free from culpable conduct. No competing inferences may be drawn. Mere speculation that the defendant may have failed to take some unspecified accident-avoidance measures or in some other way contributed to the occurrence of the accident is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Bavaro v Martel, 197 A.D.2d 813; Roman v Vargas, 182 A.D.2d 543).

The plaintiff's claim of entitlement to a lesser burden of proof under Noseworthy v City of New York ( 298 N.Y. 76) by reason of her amnesia does not absolve her of the burden to make some showing of negligence, and her failure to raise the existence of any bona fide issues of fact entitled the defendant to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Cummins v Rose, 185 A.D.2d 839; Holiday v Huntington Hosp., 164 A.D.2d 424, 427-428; Carter v County of Erie, 98 A.D.2d 963, 964). Thompson, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. Econ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1995
221 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

applying the emergency doctrine where the defendant faced “an instantaneous cross-over emergency,” and “had only a fraction of a second to react”

Summary of this case from Pelletier v. Lahm
Case details for

Williams v. Econ

Case Details

Full title:PAULINE WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. ALAN ECON, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 13, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 392

Citing Cases

Koenig v. Lee

According to the deposition testimony of the appellant Joel H. Cohen, he had no awareness that an accident…

Francis v. Guzman

On her motion for summary judgment, the defendant Malinda D. Francis established her prima facie entitlement…