From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Decker v. Zema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

July 12, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Reed, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and jury verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order of the trial court setting aside a jury verdict of no cause of action and directing a new trial. Evidence revealed that the vehicle driven by defendants' decedent slid out of control on slushy and slippery pavement and, despite the efforts of the driver to regain control, crossed the center of the highway and collided with plaintiffs' vehicle. The court properly instructed the jury that, because defendants' decedent and his passenger died as a result of the collision, defendants' burden of proof on negligence was reduced (see, Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 80; Cruz v Long Is. R.R. Co., 28 A.D.2d 282). Evidence of road conditions, the driver's efforts to control his vehicle, and the investigating officer's conclusion that no human factors, such as excessive speed, driver's inattention or alcohol, contributed to the accident was sufficient to present factual questions for the jury to resolve (Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 135; Vadala v Carroll, 91 A.D.2d 865, affd 59 N.Y.2d 751), and we do not conclude that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134).

Thus viewed, there is no need to address plaintiffs' cross appeal.


Summaries of

Decker v. Zema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Decker v. Zema

Case Details

Full title:HENRY DECKER et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. MARLISSA R. ZEMA et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1989

Citations

152 A.D.2d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
543 N.Y.S.2d 597

Citing Cases

Canfield v. Giles

A person who pleads guilty to a traffic offense is permitted to explain the reasons for the plea, and it is…