 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BUS CAR APPELLATE DIVISION DRIVER JURY EMERGENCY DOCTRINE MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ABSOLUTE DEFENDANT MOVING BUS EMERGENCY DOCTRINE INSTRUCTION REQUESTED EMERGENCY DOCTRINE JUDGE TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT YORK COSTS STIPULATION PLAINTIFF AVOID COURT BUSES EVIDENCE REASONABLENESS DENY ACTOR TESTIMONY PRECLUDE |
SEDAT KUCI, APPELLANT, v. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING
AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.
88 N.Y.2d 923, 669 N.E.2d 1110, 646 N.Y.S.2d 788 (1996).
June 28, 1996
1 No. 161 (1996 NY Int. 149)
Decided June 28, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Brian J. Isaac, for Appellant.
Lawrence Heisler, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs,
and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation.
In this personal injury action, plaintiff was a passenger on a bus
owned by defendant and driven by defendant's employee. At trial,
plaintiff testified that he was thrown across the aisle and hit his
head against a metal pole when the moving bus came to an abrupt halt.
According to the driver, he was leaving a designated bus stop when a
car suddenly appeared on his left and turned right in front of the
moving bus. The driver testified that he immediately applied his
brakes to avoid hitting the car but was unable to avoid collision.
The jury found defendant liable for plaintiff's injuries and awarded
damages in his favor. Defendant subsequently moved to set aside the
verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), arguing that it was error for the
trial court to refuse its instructions on the emergency doctrine. The
court denied the motion, concluding that the driver's familiarity with
the intersection and knowledge that cars frequently turned right from
the left lane in front of buses in this area rendered the charge
inappropriate. The Appellate Division reversed, vacated the judgment
and ordered a new trial.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorably toward giving the
requested emergency doctrine instruction to the jury (see, Rivera v
New York City Transit Authority, 77 NY2d 322, 326), we agree with
the Appellate Division that it was error to deny defendant's request.
Where some reasonable view of the evidence establishes that an actor
was confronted by a sudden and unforeseen occurrence not of the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
