Vatter v. Gibson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vatter v. Gibson

228 A.D.2d 581, 644 N.Y.2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7110

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 581 (Vatter v. Gibson) 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

Vatter v. Gibson, 228 A.D.2d 581, 644 N.Y.2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The defendants were driving their vehicles in a northbound direction on Route 17 in Paramus, New Jersey when a driver entered onto Route 17 and proceeded in a southbound direction in the northbound lanes, causing the defendants to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle, which was also traveling northbound on Route 17. A driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile will enter the roadway traveling in the opposite direction. Such a scenario presents an emergency situation and the actions of the driver presented with such a situation must be judged in that context (see, Glick v City of New York, 191 AD2d 677, 678; Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 AD2d 660, 661; cf., Hornacek v Hallenbeck, 185 AD2d 561). Here, the defendants were faced with an emergency when the offending vehicle entered Route 17 and traveled in the wrong direction and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning any possible negligence of the defendants that might have contributed to the accident (see, Moshier v Phoenix Cent. School Dist., 199 AD2d 1019; Gouchie v Gill, 198 AD2d 862). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The defendants were driving their vehicles in a northbound direction on Route 17 in Paramus, New Jersey when a driver entered onto Route 17 and proceeded in a southbound direction in the northbound lanes, causing the defendants to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle, which was also traveling northbound on Route 17. A driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile will enter the roadway traveling in the opposite direction. Such a scenario presents an emergency situation and the actions of the driver presented with such a situation must be judged in that context (see, Glick v City of New York, 191 AD2d 677, 678; Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 AD2d 660, 661; cf., Hornacek v Hallenbeck, 185 AD2d 561). Here, the defendants were faced with an emergency when the offending vehicle entered Route 17 and traveled in the wrong direction and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning any possible negligence of the defendants that might have contributed to the accident (see, Moshier v Phoenix Cent. School Dist., 199 AD2d 1019; Gouchie v Gill, 198 AD2d 862). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 581, 644 N.Y.2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vatter-v-gibson-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack