Simmons v. Weegar

292 A.D.2d 828, 739 N.Y.S.2d 801
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 828 (Simmons v. Weegar) 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
Simmons v. Weegar, 292 A.D.2d 828, 739 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Major, J.), entered September 27, 2001, that denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Bonita L. Simmons when the medical transport van in which she was a passenger crossed the median of the highway and collided with oncoming traffic. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Although plaintiffs met their initial burden by establishing that defendant driver lost control of the van in the snow (see, MacIntosh v August Ambulette Serv., 271 AD2d 661), defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether he was operating the van with due care (see, Dubois v Vanderwalker, 245 AD2d 758, 760). “Negligence cases by their very nature do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment, since often, even if all parties are in agreement as to the underlying facts, the very question of negligence is itself a question for jury determination” (Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 474). “Evidence of skidding out of control is only prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the driver; it does not mandate a finding of negligence. Such evidence together with the explanation given by the driver, presents factual questions for deter[829]*829mination by the jury” (Vadala v Carroll, 91 AD2d 865, affd 59 NY2d 751; see, Donitz v Mui, 247 AD2d 508; Zimmermann v Spaziante, 143 AD2d 745, 746). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Arms v. Halsey
43 A.D.3d 1419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Sanly v. Nowak
28 A.D.3d 1113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 A.D.2d 828, 739 N.Y.S.2d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-weegar-nyappdiv-2002.