From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cummins v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 10, 1992
185 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

August 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination of damages.

On December 30, 1987, the plaintiff Daniel Cummins, while a passenger in the vehicle operated by the defendant Andre M. Rose, was injured in a head-on collision. Three eyewitnesses testified at examinations before trial that the defendants' vehicle, which had been traveling northbound, failed to negotiate a turn, crossed a yellow line in a no-passing zone, went into the southbound lane, and struck a vehicle which had been traveling south head-on. Neither Cummins nor Rose had any recollection of the accident. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. We agree.

"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). Here, Rose was unquestionably responsible for causing the accident while Cummins was free from culpable conduct. No competing inferences may be drawn. Although a question of fact may exist as to whether Cummins was wearing a seatbelt, under these conditions that question may only be considered with regard to the possible mitigation of damages (see, Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 450; Curry v. Moser, 89 A.D.2d 1, 7). The defendants have failed to raise the existence of any bona fide issues of fact to warrant a denial of summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, O'Callaghan v. Flitter, 112 A.D.2d 1030). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cummins v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 10, 1992
185 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Cummins v. Rose

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL CUMMINS et al., Appellants, v. MURRAY F. ROSE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 10, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
586 N.Y.S.2d 988

Citing Cases

Yousefpour v. Fancher

Arrowitz v. Arrowitz, 279 A.D.2d 440 (N.Y.App.Div. 2001). Plaintiffs cite Cummins v. Rose, 185 A.D.2d 839…

Williams v. Econ

No competing inferences may be drawn. Mere speculation that the defendant may have failed to take some…