Liying Qian v Henry Eggens, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury from motor vehicle–pedestrian collision; summary judgment on liability and comparative negligence.
Denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and to dismiss defendants' comparative negligence affirmative defense.
Denial of summary judgment on liability was modified to grant plaintiff summary judgment on liability.
Defendant driver made a prohibited left turn in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110(a) [requirement to obey official traffic-control devices], constituting negligence per se, and also violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [requires drivers to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian]. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to defendant's negligence. Any dispute over plaintiff’s position in or near the crosswalk goes to comparative fault, not the defendant’s liability.
Background
Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was crossing Northern Boulevard in Flushing with the pedestrian signal in her favor when she was struck by a police vehicle driven by defendant Henry Eggens, who was making a prohibited left turn from Union Street. Plaintiff testified she looked for traffic and walked at a normal pace within the crosswalk. Eggens testified he saw plaintiff only about one second before impact and believed she was a few feet outside the crosswalk and running.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Queens County (Justice Kevin J. Kerrigan) denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability and denied dismissal of defendants’ first affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified to grant plaintiff summary judgment on liability because Eggens’s prohibited turn violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110(a) and his failure to avoid the pedestrian violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146, making his negligence a substantial factor in the accident. The court affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss the comparative negligence affirmative defense due to conflicting accounts creating a triable issue as to plaintiff’s comparative fault.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is negligence per se and that a plaintiff may obtain partial summary judgment on liability without disproving comparative negligence (Rodriguez v City of New York). Comparative negligence may remain for trial where factual disputes persist, even when liability is decided as a matter of law.
A driver who makes a prohibited turn and fails to exercise due care toward a pedestrian is liable as a matter of law; however, disputes about the pedestrian’s conduct can preserve comparative negligence issues for trial.