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.
JESSICA M. SCHMIDT, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. TINA M. GUENTHER, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT, HEATHER E. WATT AND MARY WATT, DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims against defendants Heather E. Watt and Mary Watt are dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action after being involved in a four-vehicle rear-end collision in July 2008 on Transit Road near its intersection with Rapids Road in the Town of Lockport. The first vehicle in the chain was operated by Heather E. Watt and was owned by Mary Watt (collectively, defendants); the second was operated by defendant Mark J. Besecker; the third was operated by plaintiff; and the fourth was operated by defendant Tina M. Guenther. While Besecker successfully avoided rear-ending defendants' vehicle and plaintiff successfully stopped before rear-ending Besecker's vehicle, Guenther was not able to stop her vehicle in time, and she rear-ended plaintiff's vehicle. Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them because Besecker and plaintiff had completely and successfully stopped their vehicles behind defendants' vehicle before plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by Guenther's vehicle. According to defendants, that stop broke the chain of causation and thereby relieved them of liability for plaintiff's subsequent injuries. We agree. We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from (see Schmidt v. Guenther, 103 AD3d 1162).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 12–01630
Decided: April 26, 2013
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)