Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment in Pedestrian-Knockdown Case

While many personal injury cases involve various factual issues (particularly relating to the often-contested issue of negligence) that require resolution by the trier of fact, some contain issues that may be resolved as a matter of law. One example is the so-called “pedestrian knockdown” case in which a pedestrian is struck while lawfully crossing the street while the traffic signal is in their favor.

That is what happened in Berrios-Lemus v. Village of Spring Val., decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department on November 12, 2014.

There, the court held:

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, and that he was free from comparative fault. The plaintiff demonstrated that before crossing he waited for the traffic signal to be in his favor, and that prior to entering the crosswalk he exercised due care by looking in both directions of the roadway. While crossing, he observed the police vehicle operated by Rosenbaum approach the intersection and slow down. Believing that it was going to stop, as the red light was against it, he continued to cross. He was struck by the vehicle before he could finish crossing. In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The court also rejected defendants’ argument “that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff”, reasoning that “[t]he mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered’ by further discovery is an insufficient basis for denying the motion.”

Share This: