Miller v. Fernan

New York Court of Appeals

Miller v. Fernan

534 N.E.2d 40, 73 N.Y.2d 844, 537 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3533

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by63 cases

This text of 534 N.E.2d 40 (Miller v. Fernan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Fernan, 534 N.E.2d 40, 73 N.Y.2d 844, 537 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3533 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment denied.

A common carrier owes a duty to an alighting passenger to stop at a place where the passenger may safely disembark and leave the area (see, Fagan v Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 220 NY 301, 306-307; Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, 109, 111, affd 72 NY2d 888). On a review of the record, questions of fact exist as to whether respondents breached this duty, whether the breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent (see, Keener v Tilton, 283 NY 454, 455-456). Contrary to respondents’ contention, plaintiff’s conduct was not an intervening and superseding cause as a matter of law, since there is a factual dispute over whether there was any safe alternative route which plaintiff could have taken (cf., Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 72 NY2d 888, supra; Rodriguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 117 AD2d 541, lv denied 68 NY2d 602).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment denied.

A common carrier owes a duty to an alighting passenger to stop at a place where the passenger may safely disembark and leave the area (see, Fagan v Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 220 NY 301, 306-307; Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, 109, 111, affd 72 NY2d 888). On a review of the record, questions of fact exist as to whether respondents breached this duty, whether the breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent (see, Keener v Tilton, 283 NY 454, 455-456). Contrary to respondents’ contention, plaintiff’s conduct was not an intervening and superseding cause as a matter of law, since there is a factual dispute over whether there was any safe alternative route which plaintiff could have taken (cf., Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 72 NY2d 888, supra; Rodriguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 117 AD2d 541, lv denied 68 NY2d 602).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 N.E.2d 40, 73 N.Y.2d 844, 537 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-fernan-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack