NO DRIVING AROUND LIABILITY
While traversing a crosswalk, with a pedestrian light in her favor, K.F. was allegedly hit by a vehicle driven by C.M. and sustained injuries. When a negligence case was later filed, prior to the completion of discovery, K.F. sought an order finding C.M. liable for the accident. When the Kings County Supreme Court granted that request, C.M. appealed.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that when these kinds of motions are made, it’s incumbent upon the movant to show that “`the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries.'”
Since it was unrebutted that K.F. had the right of way, and that C.M. failed to yield before hitting her, the AD2 thought the motion was appropriately decided. It didn’t think its grant was “premature,” given that there was no basis for C.M.’s “hope” or “speculation” that additional discovery might lead to “relevant evidence.”
We hope that ends that.
# # #
DECISION