Belfield v. Marte
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle personal injury; liability standards for authorized emergency vehicles under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1104 [provides a qualified exemption from certain traffic laws for authorized emergency vehicles engaged in an emergency operation and imposes civil liability only for "reckless disregard" for the safety of others], and VTL § 1104(c) [exemptions apply only when audible signals (siren) are sounded and at least one red light is displayed].
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the ambulance defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against them.
The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to the ambulance defendants, dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against them.
The record established the ambulance was responding to an emergency with lights and siren activated, and the driver stopped or sufficiently slowed before proceeding through a red light. There was no evidence of "reckless disregard"; opposing speed estimates were speculative or based on momentary observations and did not raise a triable issue of fact.
Background
On December 15, 2018, a Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. ambulance driven northbound on Kings Highway by Xaianara Y. Marte, responding to a level one priority call with lights and siren activated, entered the Kings Highway/Snyder Avenue intersection against a red light. A vehicle owned by Trevor F. Nicholas and operated eastbound on Snyder Avenue by Tushaine D. Phillpotts-Johnson, with a green light, contacted the ambulance. Plaintiff Dwayne Belfield, a passenger in the Nicholas vehicle, alleged personal injuries. Marte testified she stopped at the red for about two seconds and then slowly “crept” into the intersection, at roughly 4 mph at impact and no more than 25 mph beforehand. An eyewitness, Conrad Glasgow, heard the siren but estimated the ambulance’s speed at 45–50 mph based on assumption; he did not observe whether it stopped. Phillpotts-Johnson said he saw the ambulance’s lights only when it was 5–10 feet away, could not recall hearing the siren, and estimated 45–50 mph. The plaintiff heard a siren but did not see the ambulance pre-impact.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.) denied the branch of the ambulance defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against them.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversing, the Appellate Division held the ambulance defendants made a prima facie showing that Marte was operating an authorized emergency vehicle during an emergency operation under VTL § 1104 [qualified exemption; liability only for reckless disregard], with lights and siren activated as required by VTL § 1104(c) [siren and red light prerequisite], and that her conduct—stopping or sufficiently slowing before entering on red and proceeding cautiously—did not constitute reckless disregard. In opposition, the plaintiff and Nicholas defendants failed to raise a triable issue: eyewitness and driver speed estimates were speculative or based on limited, last-second observations and could not support a finding of reckless disregard. Summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against the ambulance defendants was therefore warranted.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that authorized emergency vehicle drivers engaged in emergency operations are shielded from ordinary negligence claims under VTL § 1104 and may be liable only for conduct amounting to "reckless disregard." To defeat summary judgment, opponents must present non-speculative, competent evidence creating a triable issue on reckless disregard; assumptions about speed or fleeting observations are insufficient. The case also underscores the importance of proving activation of audible and visual signals under VTL § 1104(c) when invoking the statute’s exemptions.
When an ambulance responds to an emergency with lights and siren on and cautiously proceeds through a red light, liability attaches only for reckless disregard—speculative speed estimates and late observations will not defeat summary judgment.