LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

CAMPBELL v CITY OF ELMIRA Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: CAMPBELL, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>084_0505, Driver, Vehicle, Traffic Law, Ny2d, Fire Truck, Statutory, Standard, Jury Verdict, Reckless Disregard, City, Evidence, Judgement, Safety, Care, Appellate Division, Emergency Vehicle, Intersection, Motorcycle, Hallmark Cards, Red Light, Privilege, Two-justice Dissent Predicate, Liability, Municipalities, Respondent, Appellant, Bellacosa, Material Respect , ContentID: 120250541

Case Documents
1 1994-12-01 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 124450
10 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 10 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
VEHICLE
TRAFFIC LAW
NY2D
FIRE TRUCK
PLAINTIFF
STATUTORY
STANDARD
JURY VERDICT
RECKLESS DISREGARD
CITY
EVIDENCE
JUDGEMENT
SAFETY
CARE
APPELLATE DIVISION
EMERGENCY VEHICLE
DEFENDANT
INTERSECTION
MOTORCYCLE
HALLMARK CARDS
RED LIGHT
PRIVILEGE
TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT PREDICATE
LIABILITY
MUNICIPALITIES
RESPONDENT
APPELLANT
BELLACOSA
MATERIAL RESPECT


  Mark W. Campbell, Respondent, v. City of Elmira, Appellant

    84 N.Y.2d 505, 644 N.E.2d 993, 620 N.Y.S.2d 302 (1994).
    December 1, 1994

   3 No. 157 (1994 NY Int. 188) Decided December 1, 1994
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   John L. Perticone, for appellant.
   David J. Clegg, for respondent.

   BELLACOSA, J.:

   The issue on this appeal is whether any rational view of the trial
   evidence supports the jury verdict that the City of Elmira's fire
   truck driver acted with reckless disregard of the safety of others
   (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Vehicle and Traffic Law
   §1104(e)). Plaintiff, a motorcyclist, won a jury verdict based on
   proof of defendant's driver's failure to satisfy the statutory
   standard of care. The Appellate Division affirmed the verdict and
   judgment in that material respect. Defendant appeals on a two-Justice
   dissent predicate. It argues that plaintiff's proof is insufficient as
   a matter of law to support the verdict. We conclude that the Appellate
   Division order should be affirmed because the jury had a rational
   evidentiary basis to find that the City of Elmira, through its driver,
   acted with reckless disregard of the safety of others.

   I.

   In the late morning on August 4, 1986, plaintiff Campbell sustained
   personal injuries when his motorcycle struck defendant's fire truck in
   the intersection of Clemens Center Parkway and East Second Street in
   the City of Elmira. Plaintiff was travelling in the left passing lane
   of Clemens Center Parkway. Defendant's yellow pumper fire truck was
   proceeding on East Second Street in response to a general alarm at the
   county jail. The accident occurred when defendant's truck proceeded
   through the intersection at a speed of 10-15 miles per hour against a
   red light. Plaintiff, approaching with a green light in his favor,
   collided with the rear wheel well of the fire truck after he
   unsuccessfully attempted to stop his motorcycle upon noticing the fire
   truck entering the intersection. Plaintiff claims that he engaged his
   brake as soon as he saw the fire truck, prior to his reaching the
   intersection. His motorcycle left a skid mark of 44 feet 5 inches.
SNIPPETS:
  • John L. Perticone, for appellant.
  • David J. Clegg, for respondent.
  • The issue on this appeal is whether any rational view of the trial evidence supports the jury
  • Plaintiff, a motorcyclist, won a jury verdict based on proof of defendant's driver's failure
  • The Appellate Division affirmed the verdict and judgment in that material respect.
  • Defendant appeals on a two-Justice dissent predicate.
  • We conclude that the Appellate Division order should be affirmed because the jury had a
  • In the late morning on August 4, 1986, plaintiff Campbell sustained personal injuries when
  • The accident occurred when defendant's truck proceeded through the intersection at a speed of
  • The emergency truck driver acknowledged at trial that he had a statutory duty to check the
  • Two Justices dissented, voting to reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint on the
  • After reciting the privileges of an emergency vehicle driver, Vehicle and Traffic Law
  • Based on these rigorous standards under our governing precedents, the jury verdict and
  • Moreover, Saarinen v Kerr presents a once-more removed vicarious liability setting in that
  • Thus, while the Legislature shields municipalities from simple negligence and mere errors in
  • Because the majority fails to appreciate the level of culpability required to hold the driver
  • Opinion by Judge Bellacosa.
  •    |