In Haider v. Zadrozny , Steffen Haider was riding a saucer being towed by a snowmobile when he was hit by Kathy Zinssar.
Haider claimed Zinssar caused the accident because she drove too fast, passed too close, and didn't see -- or steer clear of -- Haider.
After the Saratoga County Supreme Court dismissed the case, Haider appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department.
The AD3 thought there were questions as to whether Zinssar could have avoided the collision.
While the event was unforeseeable, the moonlight and snowmobile headlamps should have illuminated some 600 or more feet ahead. If conditions were such that the guy was visible, then there would have been a duty to avoid hitting him.
Because the evidence was unclear, the AD3 thought these issues were best left for resolution after a formal hearing or trial.
Does that sound alien to you?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Haider v. Zadrozny