Abel Rosario, Jr. v. Robert Scudieri
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury liability arising from a motor vehicle and bicycle collision, focusing on a driver's duty to keep a proper lookout, signal a turn, and exercise due care toward bicyclists.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability.
The plaintiff established prima facie that the defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [requiring a driver to properly signal before turning and not turn until it is reasonably safe] and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a) [requiring drivers to exercise due care to avoid colliding with bicyclists and others on the roadway] by failing to signal, failing to see what was there to be seen, and turning when it was not reasonably safe. The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and the plaintiff was not required to prove freedom from comparative fault under Rodriguez v City of New York.
Background
On May 28, 2015, the plaintiff was riding a bicycle westbound on the eastbound side of Myrtle Avenue in Queens. As he crossed Union Turnpike in the crosswalk, the defendant, who was traveling eastbound on Myrtle Avenue, turned right onto Union Turnpike, and the bicycle collided with the defendant's vehicle. The plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries and moved for summary judgment on liability.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, leaving liability for trial.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff's proof established the defendant's negligence as a matter of law. The court found that the defendant failed to signal his right turn in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163, failed to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout, failed to see what should have been seen through proper use of his senses, and turned before it was reasonably safe to do so. The court further held that the defendant's reliance on the plaintiff's possible comparative fault did not defeat summary judgment on the defendant's liability, because a plaintiff need not show freedom from comparative fault to obtain partial summary judgment on liability.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a motorist's duties toward bicyclists include maintaining a proper lookout, using reasonable care, and signaling turns. It also underscores that under Rodriguez v City of New York, a plaintiff may obtain summary judgment on a defendant's liability even where the plaintiff's own comparative negligence may remain an issue for later apportionment.
A driver who turns without signaling and without seeing an oncoming bicyclist may be held liable as a matter of law, and a bicyclist's possible comparative fault does not bar summary judgment on the driver's liability.