In Auz v. Century Carpet, the Southern District of New York recently denied summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability in a car accident case occurring at or near the intersection of Second Avenue and 57th Street in Manhattan.
“In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence under New York law, a claimant must show that: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a cognizable duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damage as a proximate result of that breach.”
The court agreed that defendants “owed a cognizable duty of care to Plaintiff, as drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident.”
However, the court held that summary judgment was not appropriate on the issue of liability, in light of factual questions as to how the accident occurred:
[T]here are genuine disputes over material facts, which must be resolved by a jury before the issue of liability may be properly decided. Most glaring is that the parties’ sworn deposition testimony reveals a genuine factual dispute as to how the collision itself occurred, i.e., who hit whom, which is certainly material to the issue of liability. Plaintiff testified that the front of Barrett’s van struck her car on its driver’s side. Barrett, on the other hand, describes the point of impact completely differently, testifying that Plaintiff’s car hit his van on its rear side door by the back tire.There are also other genuine factual disputes material to the issue of liability, including but not limited to: 1) where, in relation to the intersection of Second Avenue and 57th Street, the two vehicles were positioned when the accident occurred; 2) which vehicle entered the intersection first; 3) whether Plaintiff was heading straight through the intersection or was making a right turn; 4) the position of the bus on Second Avenue; 5) whether Barrett tried to turn around the bus; 6) whether Barrett violated any traffic laws; 7) whether any traffic law violation was the proximate cause of the accident; and 8) whether Plaintiff was comparatively negligent. …[D]ue to significant disputes over the facts surrounding the accident, including disputes over who initiated the impact and where on the vehicles the impact occurred, it is impossible at this stage of litigation to determine whether Defendants breached the duty owed Plaintiff, and whether any breach was the proximate cause of the collision at issue.