Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joan HASTINGS-DOVE and John A. Dove, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Brian W. HACKFORD and Jennifer A. Turner, Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 1.)
Jennifer A. Turner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian W. Hackford, Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 2.).
These consolidated actions arise out of a two-vehicle accident that occurred at an intersection controlled by a traffic light. Joan Hastings-Dove, a plaintiff in action No. 1, was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by Jennifer A. Turner, a defendant in action No. 1 and the plaintiff in action No. 2. The Turner vehicle collided with a vehicle owned and operated by Brian W. Hackford, a defendant in action No. 1 and the sole defendant in action No. 2. Following a bifurcated trial on liability, the jury found that neither Turner nor Hackford was negligent.
Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' post-trial motion in action No. 1 seeking to set aside the verdict as, inter alia, against the weight of the evidence and granted a new trial on liability, but erred in denying Turner's post-trial motion in action No. 2 seeking the same relief. The evidence established that plaintiff Joan Hastings-Dove was free from negligence and that the accident was the result of the negligence of one or both drivers, i.e., Turner and Hackford. Neither offered a nonnegligent explanation for the accident. Rather, they both testified that they entered the intersection with the traffic light in their favor and that neither saw the other until the moment of impact. Each driver, however, was “obliged to see that which by the proper use of his [or her] senses he [or she] should have seen” (Perez v. Paljevic, 31 A.D.3d 520, 521, 818 N.Y.S.2d 581), and “to use ‘reasonable care when proceeding into the intersection’ ” (Strasburg v. Campbell, 28 A.D.3d 1131, 1132, 816 N.Y.S.2d 627). Based upon the evidence at trial, “a finding of negligence against at least one of them was warranted,” and the jury's finding that neither was negligent is not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (Sena v. Negron, 38 A.D.3d 516, 519, 832 N.Y.S.2d 236). We therefore modify the order accordingly.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting the post-trial motion in action No. 2 and setting aside the verdict in that action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and a new trial is granted on liability in action No. 2.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 14, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)