Segura v Smith
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury motor vehicle accident litigation involving summary judgment on liability and dismissal of affirmative defenses for comparative negligence, failure to wear a seatbelt, and assumption of risk.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability but denied dismissal of the defendants' affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence, failure to wear a seatbelt, and assumption of risk.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment dismissing the seatbelt and assumption of risk defenses, but left intact the denial of summary judgment dismissing the comparative negligence defense.
The plaintiff's own submissions, including the police accident report containing the defendant driver's statement that the plaintiff stopped suddenly at a green light, failed to eliminate triable issues on comparative negligence. But the plaintiff's affidavit established that he was wearing a seatbelt, and assumption of risk does not apply to this type of rear-end automobile accident.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that while he was operating his vehicle, it was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by Hems Delivery, Inc., and Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., and operated by Loren Smith. The defendants asserted affirmative defenses including comparative negligence, failure to wear a seatbelt, and assumption of risk. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability and to dismiss those defenses.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability, finding the defendants responsible for the rear-end collision, but denied the branches of the motion seeking dismissal of the affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence, failure to wear a seatbelt, and assumption of risk.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses of failure to wear a seatbelt and assumption of risk. It otherwise affirmed, holding that the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing eliminating all triable issues as to his own comparative negligence because the police report he submitted included the defendant driver's account that the plaintiff stopped suddenly at a green light. By submitting that report, the plaintiff waived any objection to its admissibility.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a plaintiff seeking summary judgment dismissing a comparative negligence defense must affirmatively eliminate factual issues regarding the plaintiff's own fault. It also highlights that a party may waive objections to otherwise inadmissible material by submitting it on a motion. In addition, the case confirms that assumption of risk is not a viable defense in an ordinary rear-end car accident and that an unrebutted affidavit can suffice to defeat a seatbelt defense.
Even when a plaintiff wins summary judgment on liability in a rear-end collision case, the comparative negligence defense may survive if the plaintiff's own evidence leaves room for factual disputes; however, unsupported seatbelt and assumption of risk defenses should be dismissed.