From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bolta v. Lohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 1997
242 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

August 25, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

We agree with the plaintiff's contention that he demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence adduced in support of the motion established that after the defendant Kerri L. Lohan brought her vehicle to a stop at a stop sign, she proceeded into the intersection directly into the path of the plaintiff's oncoming car. The defendant Kerri L. Lohan failed to yield the right of way as required (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [al). Therefore, the plaintiff demonstrated the defendants' liability as a matter of law ( see, Salenius v. Lisbon, 217 A.D.2d 692; Cassidy v. Valenti, 211 A.D.2d 876; Hill v. Luna, 195 A.D.2d 1000). Indeed, under such circumstances it is settled that a driver is negligent where an accident occurs because she has failed to see that which through proper use of her senses she should have seen ( see, Safran v. Amato, 155 A.D.2d 653; Olsen v. Baker, 112 A.D.2d 610; see also, Weigand v. United Traction Co., 221 N.Y. 39; Milka v. Hernandez, 187 A.D.2d 1031, 1032; Weiser v. Dalbo, 184 A.D.2d 935). Since the plaintiff's car was clearly present, and was visible, the defendant Kerri L. Lohan should have seen it and yielded the right of way. Her failure to do so established her negligence as a matter of law.

In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the defendants failed to prove the existence of any genuine issues of material fact that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent or that he could have done anything to avoid the collision ( see, Wilke v. Price, 221 A.D.2d 846; Cassidy v. Valenti, supra; Hill v Luna, supra). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted ( see, Salenius v. Lisbon, supra).

We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bolta v. Lohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 1997
242 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Bolta v. Lohan

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN D. BOLTA, Appellant, v. KERRI L. LOHAN et al., Respondents. (And…

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

Date published: Aug 25, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 286

Citing Cases

Kucar v. Town of Huntington

A driver with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the other driver will obey traffic laws that…

Gray v. Wackenhut Services

Div. 2009), and the Plaintiff's failure to see the security barrier over the hood of her car is negligence.…