2 No. 22
Antoinette Caristo et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Augustine Sanzone et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 37
April 3, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Arnold E. DiJoseph III, for appellants.
Alan M. McLaughlin, for respondents. GRAFFEO, J.: The issue in this
motor vehicle accident negligence case is whether the trial court
erred in charging the jury on the emergency doctrine. Under the facts
presented, we conclude that defendants were not entitled to this
instruction.
At approximately 9:00 A.M. on the morning of the accident, defendant
Augustine Sanzone was driving a vehicle owned by his wife, defendant
Patricia Cinquemani, on Foster Road in Staten Island. At the same
time, plaintiff Antoinette Caristo was operating her automobile on
Woodrow Road. Foster Road terminated at a "T" intersection with
Woodrow Road, and a stop sign controlled the flow of traffic from
Foster Road onto Woodrow Road.
At trial, Sanzone testified that the weather conditions at 7:00 A.M.
that day consisted of snow, rain and freezing rain. This mixed
precipitation was unchanged when he and his family left their home at
approximately 8:30 A.M. By the time he drove to Foster Road, the
weather had worsened. He described the conditions as "more like frozen
rain and hail at the time." The temperature that morning was
established, by stipulation of the parties, at 22 degrees Fahrenheit.
After cresting an incline on Foster Road, Sanzone proceeded downhill
toward the Woodrow Road intersection, traveling at 20 to 25 miles per
hour. At this juncture, his vehicle began to slide and he noticed
there was "a sheet of ice" on the hill. Despite Sanzone's effort to
pump the brakes, the vehicle slid 175 to 200 feet, past the stop sign
and into Woodrow Road. As plaintiff approached the intersection at 15
to 20 miles per hour and saw defendants' vehicle, she attempted to
swerve to avoid a collision, but was unsuccessful. Both Cinquemani and
the police officer who responded to the scene of the accident
confirmed the icy conditions on Foster Road. Neither plaintiff nor
Sanzone experienced difficulty controlling their vehicles prior to
SNIPPETS:
The issue in this motor vehicle accident negligence case is whether the trial court erred in
At approximately 9:00 A.M. on the morning of the accident, defendant Augustine Sanzone was
Foster Road terminated at a "T" intersection with Woodrow Road, and a stop sign controlled
At trial, Sanzone testified that the weather conditions at 7:00 A.M. that day consisted of
his vehicle began to slide and he noticed there was "a sheet of ice" on the hill.
As plaintiff approached the intersection at 15 to 20 miles per hour and saw defendants'
Since then, we have articulated and applied the common-law emergency doctrine which
ra v New York City Tr.
Auth.,, 77 NY2d 322, 327), provided the actor has not created the emergency.
The rationale for this doctrine -- the need to instruct a jury that it may consider the
In New York, in addition to the elements of the charge, we have defined the role of the Trial
We require the Judge to make the threshold determination that there is some reasonable view
The emergency instruction is, therefore, properly charged where the evidence supports a
Auth., supra, 77 NY2d, at 327; Kuci v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr.
Operating Auth., supra, 88 NY2d, at 924), we hold as a matter of law that there was no
Given Sanzone's admitted knowledge of the worsening weather conditions, the presence of ice
Although Sanzone did not encounter patches of ice on the roadways before losing control of
Ferrer is clearly distinguishable in that defendant was confronted by an unanticipated event
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and a new
Second, the character of the ice was such that, despite his efforts to stop the car, he slid
|
