Gouchie v. Gill

Decision Date19 November 1993
Citation198 A.D.2d 862,605 N.Y.S.2d 709
PartiesDavid A. GOUCHIE, Respondent, v. Robert GILL, Fred Daryl Rinehart, Respondents, and Robert F. Cook, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

O'Shea, Reynolds, Napier, Cummings & Kirby by Kenneth Kirby, Buffalo, for appellant, Robert F. Cook.

Lewis & Lewis, P.C. by Mark Quarantillo, Buffalo, for respondent, Gouchie.

Paul William Beltz, P.C. by Kevin Sullivan, Buffalo, for respondent, Gill.

Fred Daryl Rinehart, respondent pro se.

Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and PINE, BALIO, DOERR and BOOMER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court erred in denying defendant Robert F. Cook's (defendant) motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaints. A driver in his proper lane of travel is not required to anticipate that a car going in the opposite direction will cross over into that lane (see, Palmer v. Palmer, 31 A.D.2d 876, 877, 297 N.Y.S.2d 428, aff'd, 27 N.Y.2d 945, 318 N.Y.S.2d 317, 267 N.E.2d 103; Gooch v. Shapiro, 7 A.D.2d 307, 182 N.Y.S.2d 744, aff'd, 8 N.Y.2d 1088, 208 N.Y.S.2d 34, 170 N.E.2d 830). The failure of a driver, not otherwise negligent, who encounters such a car, "to avert the consequence[s] of such an emergency can seldom be considered negligent" (Breckir v. Lewis, 21 A.D.2d 546, 549, 251 N.Y.S.2d 77, aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 1027, 260 N.Y.S.2d 178, 207 N.E.2d 865, citing Meyer v. Whisnant, 307 N.Y. 369, 121 N.E.2d 372). A driver faced with a vehicle careening across the highway directly into his path "is not liable for [his] failure to exercise the best judgment or for any error[s] of judgment on [his] part" (Wolfson v. Darnell, 15 A.D.2d 516, 517, 222 N.Y.S.2d 458, aff'd in part and dismissed in part, 12 N.Y.2d 819, 236 N.Y.S.2d 67, 187 N.E.2d 133). Once a defendant establishes that a head-on collision was caused by plaintiff's crossing over into defendant's lane of travel, defendant has established "a complete defense to plaintiff's action" (Eisenbach v. Rogers, 158 A.D.2d 792, 793, 551 N.Y.S.2d 385, lv. denied, 79 N.Y.2d 752, 580 N.Y.S.2d 199, 588 N.E.2d 97; see also, Morowitz v. Naughton, 150 A.D.2d 536, 537, 541 N.Y.S.2d 122). It then becomes "incumbent upon plaintiff to submit evidence in admissible form to create an issue of fact as to [defendant's] negligence contributing to the happening of the accident" (Eisenbach v. Rogers, supra, 158 A.D.2d at 793, 551 N.Y.S.2d 385).

Defendant's proof concerning the manner in which the accident occurred was sufficient to establish a complete defense to plaintiffs' actions. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning possible negligence of the defendant that might have contributed to the accident. Even considering two statements of defendant, which were not in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718), we conclude that plaintiffs offered no evidence to suggest that defendant could have done something to avoid the collision (see, Eisenbach v. Rogers, supra, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Forbes v. Plume
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 17, 1994
    ...travel is not required to anticipate that a car going in the opposite direction will cross over into that lane * * * " (Gouchie v. Gill, 198 A.D.2d 862, 605 N.Y.S.2d 709; see, Palmer v. Palmer, 31 A.D.2d 876, 297 N.Y.S.2d 428, affd 27 N.Y.2d 945, 318 N.Y.S.2d 317, 267 N.E.2d 103). Defendant......
  • Rich v. Coopervision, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 19, 1993
  • Wright v. Morozinis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 10, 1995
    ...who encounters such a car to avert the consequence of such an emergency, can seldom be considered negligence (see, Gouchie v. Gill, 198 A.D.2d 862, 605 N.Y.S.2d 709; Breckir v. Lewis, 21 A.D.2d 546, 549, 251 N.Y.S.2d 77, affd., 15 N.Y.2d 1027, 260 N.Y.S.2d 178, 207 N.E.2d 865). Whether Ridd......
  • Hanover Ins. Co. v. Washburn
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 14, 1995
    ...(see, Cohen v. Masten, 203 A.D.2d 774, 610 N.Y.S.2d 385, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 809, 621 N.Y.S.2d 519, 645 N.E.2d 1219; Gouchie v. Gill, 198 A.D.2d 862, 605 N.Y.S.2d 709). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of ORDERED that the orde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT