Rudy Rivera v. Khimson Masola
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Motor vehicle and micromobility (electric scooter) collision; right-of-way and lane-use duties; summary judgment on liability.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The denial of defendant’s summary-judgment motion.
Undisputed evidence showed defendant was lawfully traveling in the right lane at a lawful speed with the right of way, while plaintiff entered the roadway from the sidewalk without yielding in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143 [vehicle entering a roadway must yield the right of way], 1281 [electric scooters are subject to the same duties as motor vehicles], and 1284(1), (3) [operational rules for electric scooters, including obedience to traffic laws and yielding]. There was no evidence of a Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 violation [driving within a single lane; changing lanes only when safe] or other negligence by defendant, and plaintiff admitted less than one second elapsed from entry to impact, leaving defendant insufficient time to react.
Background
Plaintiff, operating an electric scooter subject to the same duties as a motor vehicle, entered the roadway from a sidewalk curb cut and was struck by defendant’s vehicle, which was traveling in the right lane within the speed limit. Both parties testified the collision occurred in the right lane. Plaintiff claimed defendant was merging into a parking lane to make a right turn and failed to exercise due care.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gomez, J.) denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
Unanimously reversed on the law; defendant’s motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Court directed entry of judgment. The panel found defendant established prima facie entitlement to judgment by showing lawful operation with the right of way. Plaintiff violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143, 1281, and 1284(1), (3) by entering from the sidewalk without stopping or yielding. Plaintiff’s theory of a Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 lane-change violation was unsupported by the record. Citing Eltosam v Darling Ingredients Inc., the Court held a driver with the right of way may assume others will obey traffic laws, and plaintiff’s admission that less than one second elapsed left defendant insufficient time to react.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that electric scooter operators are bound by Vehicle and Traffic Law duties applicable to motor vehicles, including yielding when entering a roadway. A driver with the right of way who is operating lawfully is not liable absent evidence of unreasonable conduct, and split-second emergencies with insufficient reaction time support summary judgment for the driver.
E-scooter riders must yield when entering a roadway; where a motorist with the right of way is driving lawfully and has no time to react, summary judgment dismissing negligence claims is warranted.