From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1999
259 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

holding that driver's failure to maintain a safe driving speed and distance on wet, foggy night was the proximate cause where no evidence that the driver of the car stopped in middle lane was negligent in failing to restart her vehicle or take other precautionary steps

Summary of this case from Mahar v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc.

Opinion

March 4, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).


In this case involving a rear-end collision, it is clear, as a matter of law, that the proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff's failure to maintain a safe driving speed and distance ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Warren v. Donovan, 254 A.D.2d 201; Galante v. BMW Fin. Servs. N. Am., 223 A.D.2d 421). We do not find any evidence of negligence by defendant Colesanti in her restarting of her disabled vehicle or her failure to take precautionary steps while she was alone in the disabled car in the middle lane of the Triborough Bridge on a wet, foggy night.

Even if, as plaintiff contends, defendant Authority had a duty to remove the disabled car from the bridge, we nonetheless fail to perceive any basis upon which to conclude that its failure to remove the car was a proximate cause of the accident. It is clear that plaintiff would have had time to avoid the stalled vehicle, if he had been driving at a safe speed and at a safe distance from the vehicles ahead of him.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1999
259 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

holding that driver's failure to maintain a safe driving speed and distance on wet, foggy night was the proximate cause where no evidence that the driver of the car stopped in middle lane was negligent in failing to restart her vehicle or take other precautionary steps

Summary of this case from Mahar v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc.

affirming lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant where the undisputed evidence showed that plaintiff's failure to maintain a safe driving speed and distance was the proximate cause of a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle

Summary of this case from Haust v. United States
Case details for

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 394

Citing Cases

Tsiomos v. Szak

Szak's assertion that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Skanska placed the temporary traffic…

Sorahan v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

At his deposition, Eddy Guerrier admitted that he struck the rear of plaintiff's stopped vehicle and that the…