Guzzardi v. Grotas
| Decision Date | 19 December 1983 |
| Citation | 469 N.Y.S.2d 475,98 A.D.2d 761 |
| Parties | Betty GUZZARDI, et al., Appellants, v. Joseph GROTAS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bert W. Subin, P.C., New York City (Sally Weinraub, P.C., New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Rivkin, Leff, Sherman & Radler, Garden City (Frank L. Amoroso and Nancy K. Eisner, Garden City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before DAMIANI, J.P., and TITONE, LAZER and BRACKEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 10, 1982, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of defendants.
Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
On June 11, 1976, following a visit to the beach, defendant Joseph Grotas was driving an automobile on Beach Channel Drive in the Rockaways when the vehicle swerved and went up on the curb, hitting a pole and injuring plaintiff Betty Guzzardi, a passenger.
At trial, defendant Joseph Grotas' own testimony, rather than exculpating him, raised an inference that he had been negligent in the operation and control of his vehicle (see Pretto v. Leiwant, 80 A.D.2d 579, 435 N.Y.S.2d 778; Stracher v. Pattee, 25 A.D.2d 917, 270 N.Y.S.2d 154). It is the duty of a motorist to operate his automobile with reasonable care, having regard to the actual and potential hazards existing from weather, road, traffic and other conditions, to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed, to have his automobile under reasonable control, and to keep a proper lookout, under the circumstances, then existing, to see and be aware of what was in his view (see 1 NY PJI 2d 2:77, p. 224). Joseph Grotas testified that he was driving at 30 to 35 miles per hour on a road that was under construction and which was "pretty bumpy". He saw holes in the road, and tried to avoid them by swerving around them. The accident occurred when his right front wheel went into a depression in the road; the vehicle then swerved to the right and went out of control. It skidded and swerved across a lane, going up on the curb and hitting a telephone pole. He claimed that he did not see the particular depression before he hit it, although, admittedly, nothing was obscuring his visibility.
Following the close of evidence at trial, plaintiffs' attorney moved for a directed verdict against defendants on the issue of negligence. The court reserved decision, and sent the issue to the jury. After the jury returned with a verdict in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Covey v. Simonton
...(3d Dep't 1998); Terrell v. Kissel, 116 A.D.2d 637, 638-39, 497 N.Y.S.2d 716, 718 (2d Dep't 1986)); see also Guzzardi v. Grotas, 98 A.D.2d 761, 469 N.Y.S.2d 475, 476 (2d Dep't 1983). All drivers are under a duty: (1) to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed, (2) to have their automobiles......
-
Badr v. Hogan
...§ 498 [Prince 10th ed]; see, Gedrin v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 119 A.D.2d 799, 501 N.Y.S.2d 426; Guzzardi v. Grotas, 98 A.D.2d 761, 469 N.Y.S.2d 475). The view adopted by our dissenting colleagues is that because the plaintiff initially denied receiving moneys to which she was......
-
Gibbs v. US
...its duty to operate a motor vehicle with reasonable care under New York statutory and common law. See Guzzardi v. Grotas, 98 A.D.2d 761, 469 N.Y.S.2d 475 (2d Dep't 1983); New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160, § 1151-a; see also § 1163(a) ("no person shall turn a vehicle to enter a privat......
-
Gedrin by Gedrin v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center, JEWISH-HILLSIDE
...to be unworthy of belief (Richardson, Evidence § 498 [10th ed, Prince]; Fisch, New York Evidence § 455 [2d ed]; see, Guzzardi v. Grotas, 98 A.D.2d 761, 469 N.Y.S.2d 475). Here, where the credibility of the plaintiffs' mother was at issue, the court properly permitted defense counsel to cros......