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.
Zeshan MALLIK, etc., et al., Appellants, v. John YOUNGBLOOD, Defendant, Independent Coach Corporation, et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated April 23, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Independent Coach Corporation and Lawrence Union Free School District # 15 which were, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motions are denied.
The plaintiffs alleged that the bus stop designated by the school district is unsafe, and that therefore it is liable for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff Zeshan Mallik as he attempted to cross the street after leaving the school bus. Generally, a school district may not be held vicariously liable for the purported negligence of a bus company that is an independent contractor (see, Kleeman v. Rheingold, 81 N.Y.2d 270, 598 N.Y.S.2d 149, 614 N.E.2d 712). Here, however, the affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert raised a triable issue of fact as to the safety of the bus stop in question, and therefore, the motion of the school district should have been denied (see generally, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
The Supreme Court also erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant bus company. While the intersection where the infant plaintiff was discharged was designated by the school district, the record indicates that it was left to the discretion of the bus company to decide where at the intersection to drop off the students. The plaintiffs have raised a triable issue as to whether the bus company failed to exercise reasonable care in not stopping on the busier street of the intersection, which the infant plaintiff was required to cross (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174[b]; Bruce v. Hasbrouk, 207 A.D.2d 10, 620 N.Y.S.2d 562, affd. 87 N.Y.2d 370, 639 N.Y.S.2d 971, 663 N.E.2d 283).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: July 17, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)