“Doored” Cyclist’s Case Dismissed Against MTA

The elements of a negligence claim brought under New York law are well settled. They are: (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) injury substantially caused by that breach.

Thus, even if the defendant is negligent, there can be no recovery unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant’s negligence caused plaintiff injury. A corollary to this rule is that, where the causal link between the defendant’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injury is “severed”, plaintiff cannot recover.

That is what happened in DeHoyos v. City of New York, a personal injury case involving a “doored” cyclist. There, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant MTA Capital Construction Company, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

The court explained:

Plaintiff testified that as he was cycling south on Second Avenue in Manhattan a passenger in a double-parked livery cab opened the cab door directly into his path, whereupon he veered into the adjacent traffic lane and was hit by another vehicle. Plaintiff’s contention that MTA’s construction activities along Second Avenue obstructed his view of the cab until he was about 15 feet from it, and that if he had seen the cab from a greater distance the accident could have been avoided, is belied by his testimony that the cab door opened just as he was about to pass the cab. The opening of the cab door interrupted the nexus between any possible negligence on MTA’s part and plaintiff’s injuries and relieves MTA of any liability. (Emphasis added.)

Share This: