Sappleton v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sappleton v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

140 A.D.2d 684, 529 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6134

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 31, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 684 (Sappleton v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sappleton v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, 140 A.D.2d 684, 529 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

This action arose out of a one-vehicle accident which occurred on September 24, 1979, when the bus on which the plaintiff was a passenger collided with a utility pole on Beach 22nd Street in Far Rockaway, causing her to be thrown from her seat.

At trial, the defendant’s bus driver testified that the collision occurred on a one-way street with cars parked on the left-hand side of the road. The utility pole was located on the [685]*685right-hand side of the street, six inches from the curb. The bus driver claimed that there was a slight curve in the road and estimated the distance between the parked cars on the left and the curb on the right to be about "the width of a bus and-a-half’. He stated that the bus was traveling at a speed of about 20 miles per hour when it struck the pole. The driver admitted that he did not see the utility pole prior to the collision because he was looking out his side view mirror to make sure that the bus did not get too close to the parked cars on his left. He also acknowledged that his foot was on the gas when the impact occurred.

The plaintiff contends that the jury’s finding of no negligence on the part of the defendant is against the weight of the credible evidence. We agree. This is a case where the bus driver was bound to see what, with proper use of his senses, he should have seen (see, Weigand v United Traction Co., 221 NY 39; Avila v Mellen, 131 AD2d 408; Terrell v Kissel, 116 AD2d 637). Thus, his claim that he did not see the utility pole until after the collision was an admission that he failed to keep a proper lookout. Consequently, we find that the jury’s determination was against the weight of the credible evidence (see, Terrell v Kissel, supra).

We further find that under the circumstances of this case the trial court erred in giving the "sudden stop or jolt” and comparative negligence instructions since there was no evidence presented at trial to support either instruction (see, Avila v Mellen, supra, at 409).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and a new trial is granted. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

This action arose out of a one-vehicle accident which occurred on September 24, 1979, when the bus on which the plaintiff was a passenger collided with a utility pole on Beach 22nd Street in Far Rockaway, causing her to be thrown from her seat.

At trial, the defendant’s bus driver testified that the collision occurred on a one-way street with cars parked on the left-hand side of the road. The utility pole was located on the [685]*685right-hand side of the street, six inches from the curb. The bus driver claimed that there was a slight curve in the road and estimated the distance between the parked cars on the left and the curb on the right to be about "the width of a bus and-a-half’. He stated that the bus was traveling at a speed of about 20 miles per hour when it struck the pole. The driver admitted that he did not see the utility pole prior to the collision because he was looking out his side view mirror to make sure that the bus did not get too close to the parked cars on his left. He also acknowledged that his foot was on the gas when the impact occurred.

The plaintiff contends that the jury’s finding of no negligence on the part of the defendant is against the weight of the credible evidence. We agree. This is a case where the bus driver was bound to see what, with proper use of his senses, he should have seen (see, Weigand v United Traction Co., 221 NY 39; Avila v Mellen, 131 AD2d 408; Terrell v Kissel, 116 AD2d 637). Thus, his claim that he did not see the utility pole until after the collision was an admission that he failed to keep a proper lookout. Consequently, we find that the jury’s determination was against the weight of the credible evidence (see, Terrell v Kissel, supra).

We further find that under the circumstances of this case the trial court erred in giving the "sudden stop or jolt” and comparative negligence instructions since there was no evidence presented at trial to support either instruction (see, Avila v Mellen, supra, at 409).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and a new trial is granted. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 684, 529 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sappleton-v-metropolitan-suburban-bus-authority-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack