From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lauricella v. McKinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 8, 2001
284 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 8, 2001.

(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Summary Judgment.)

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, WISNER, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that he sustained in a one-car accident in the State of Michigan. The automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger struck a pool of water during a heavy rainstorm, spun out of control and rolled over. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the "sudden emergency doctrine" under Michigan Law ( see, Moore v. Spangler, 401 Mich. 360, 382-383, 258 N.W.2d 34, 43; Vander Laan v. Miedema, 385 Mich. 226, 231-232, 188 N.W.2d 564, 567). Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Whether the circumstances constituted a "sudden emergency" and whether defendants' conduct was reasonable in light of those circumstances are issues for the trier of fact ( see, Sacco v. Phillippsen, 272 A.D.2d 889; see also, Kuci v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 88 N.Y.2d 923, 924).


Summaries of

Lauricella v. McKinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 8, 2001
284 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Lauricella v. McKinney

Case Details

Full title:ERICK S. LAURICELLA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HEATHER A. McKINNEY AND…

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

Date published: Jun 8, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 510

Citing Cases

Greenwell v. Moody

Those defendants contend that they established as a matter of law both that the emergency doctrine applies…

Barnes v. Fix

t to the extent it sought to recover damages from Caleb for injuries resulting from the second accident…