Kenya Torres v Anthony L. Occhino et al.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle accident liability and whether a comparative negligence defense can survive summary judgment when a driver with the right-of-way is struck by a vehicle turning left out of a parking lot.
The lower court denied the part of plaintiff's summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of defendants' first affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence.
The Appellate Division reversed that denial and granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the comparative negligence defense.
The record showed that defendant Occhino turned left from a parking lot exit into traffic and struck the rear driver's side door of plaintiff's passing vehicle, so the crash could only have resulted from his ill-timed or sudden turn. Plaintiff's testimony that she did not look left and did not see his vehicle before impact did not create a factual issue, Occhino's claim that plaintiff was weaving was deemed facially incredible because it contradicted his own deposition testimony, and plaintiff's lack of a proper driver's license was irrelevant to negligence.
Background
Plaintiff was driving past a parking lot exit with the right-of-way when defendant Anthony L. Occhino attempted a left turn from the parking lot into the flow of traffic and hit the rear driver's side door of plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking, among other relief, dismissal of defendants' first affirmative defense based on comparative negligence.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County, denied the portion of plaintiff's motion that sought dismissal of the comparative negligence defense, allowing defendants to continue arguing that plaintiff may have contributed to the accident.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed insofar as appealed from and granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the first affirmative defense. The court held that plaintiff's alleged failure to look left before impact was not a triable issue where defendant turned into her path, that defendant's weaving testimony was incredible as a matter of law because it contradicted his prior deposition statements that he did not see plaintiff's vehicle until just before impact, and that driving without a proper license does not establish negligence.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a driver exiting a parking lot and turning into moving traffic bears responsibility when striking a vehicle that has the right-of-way, and that speculative or internally contradictory testimony will not defeat summary judgment. It also confirms that the absence of a driver's license, standing alone, is not relevant to comparative negligence in a motor vehicle accident case.
When a vehicle with the right-of-way is struck by a driver making a left turn out of a parking lot, a comparative negligence defense may be dismissed on summary judgment if the evidence shows the turning driver's conduct was the sole cause of the collision.