![]() |
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LAW VEHICLE DRUNK DRIVING BARKER PLAINTIFF NY2D DUTY MANNING SUIT YORK COLLISION HUMPHREY COURT CRIMINAL ACT PRECLUSION VIOLATION PRODUCT LIABILITY UTILITY POLE BLOOD ALCOHOL INTOXICATION PUBLIC POLICY BARKER/MANNING RULE DEFENDANTS DESIGN DEFECTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ILLEGAL ACT NEGLIGENCE PRECLUSION DOCTRINE |
2 No. 15
Shauna Alami, &c.,
Appellant,
v.
Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 18
February 19, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Fred R. Profeta, Jr., for appellant.
David B. Hamm, for respondent.
Product Liability Advisory Council; Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
amici curić.
_________________________________________________________________
WESLEY, J.:
In the early morning hours of May 10, 1995 Silhadi Alami was driving
home alone in his Volkswagen Jetta on the Saw Mill River Parkway in
Yonkers. Traveling at approximately 35 miles per hour, the Jetta left
an exit ramp and collided with a steel utility pole. Alami died as a
result of his injuries -- fractures of the ribs, rupture of the liver
and massive internal hemorrhaging. At the time of the collision, his
blood alcohol content exceeded the limits set forth in Vehicle and
Traffic Law § 1192(2).
Alami's widow commenced this action against Volkswagen of America,
Inc. seeking to recover damages on the theory that a defect in the
vehicle's design enhanced decedent's injuries. Volkswagen moved for
summary judgment arguing that decedent's intoxication was the sole
cause of the crash and that no defect or malfunction in the Jetta
caused or contributed to it. In light of Alami's intoxication at the
time of the accident, Volkswagen also asserted that plaintiff's claim
was precluded on public policy grounds. Volkswagen's motion did not
address whether plaintiff could sustain her claim that the vehicle was
defective.
In opposing the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit and report
from an expert who had inspected the vehicle, autopsy report,
photographs of the scene, police report and crash test results from
SNIPPETS:
|
| | | |