Koester v. State

• Decision Date: 17 December 1982
• Citation: 90 A.D.2d 357,457 N.Y.S.2d 655
• Parties: Stephen P. KOESTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of New York, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 655

457 N.Y.S.2d 655

90 A.D.2d 357

Stephen P. KOESTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Dec. 17, 1982.

Sargent, Sargent, Martin & Levin, Syracuse, for appellant (Donald Martin, Syracuse, of counsel).

Hon. Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany, for respondent (Vernon Stuart, Albany, of counsel).

Before DILLON, P.J., and DOERR, DENMAN, MOULE and SCHNEPP, JJ.

SCHNEPP, Justice.

This appeal concerns the question of legal causation in the context of a claim for damages against the State of New York arising from the failure of a motorcyclist to negotiate a curve on a State highway interchange. The Court of Claims found after a trial that the State was negligent in failing to install "curve" and "stated speed" signs but that the absence of such signs was not a factor in the causation of the accident and that claimant had failed to sustain his burden of proving that the State's negligence was the "proximate cause" of the accident. No issue is raised on this appeal concerning the finding of negligence and we do not disturb it. However, we disagree with the finding concerning the consequences which flowed from the failure of the State to install a curve sign.

The facts adduced at trial show that the interchange consists of one exit and two entrance ramps. The ramps lead to and from the north side of West Genesee Street in the Town of Geddes, Onondaga County and a divided highway that forms part of the Camillus Bypass. The easternmost entrance ramp ["WGC"] receives traffic proceeding in a westerly direction on West Genesee Street and the westernmost entrance ramp ["SGS"] receives the eastbound traffic. Ramp SGS intersects West Genesee Street at a right angle and from that point runs directly north a distance of 378 feet until it curves to the west. The Court of Claims described this curve as a 19 degree curve with a length of approximately 245 feet, a radius of 300 feet, a maximum superelevation of .08 and a recommended speed of 32 miles per hour. At a point about 195 feet beyond the start of the curve, ramp SGS merges with ramp WGC; this is approximately where the accident occurred. The curve continues some 50 feet beyond the point of merger. The width of ramp SGS varies from 30 feet at its intersection with West Genesee Street to 20 feet at the point of merger.

The edge lines and center line of ramp SGS are painted with reflectorized paint, with the edge line on the right-hand, or east, side running to the point of merger, and the edge line on the left-hand, or west, side (which becomes the south side) and the center line running beyond the point of merger. Reflectorized delineators, which are designed to be visible from a distance of 500 feet when illuminated by automobile headlamps, are on both sides of ramp SGS until the point of merger; from that point they continue around the curve on each side of the merged ramps, i.e., the west side of the now merged ramp SGS and the east side of the now merged ramp WGC. Reflectorized cable guide rails also define the west side of ramp SGS around the curve and beyond the point of merger, and the east side (which becomes the north side) of the merged ramps. The only sign on either entrance ramp is a yield sign controlling traffic on ramp WGC near the point of merger with ramp SGS. Neither ramp is artificially illuminated.

On September 21, 1976 at approximately 9:15 p.m., Stephen P. Koester, the claimant-appellant, stopped his 750cc Honda motorcycle at a traffic signal at West Genesee Street, made a left-hand turn onto ramp SGS and proceeded in the right-hand lane of traffic, accelerating to a speed of approximately 35 to 40 miles per hour, i.e., about 55 feet per second. The motorcycle was equipped with a fairing, i.e., wind screen, and luggage rack as accessories and had a quartz iodine headlight which provided approximately 100 feet of direct illumination and between 150 and 200 feet of peripheral illumination. It was dark, the weather fair and the pavement dry. Claimant followed the delineators on the right side of the ramp and when he reached a point 200 feet up the ramp he noticed the headlights of cars proceeding up ramp WGC. He testified that he "looked over at them and figured how they would affect my travel and if they were to merge with me what I would need to do such that everyone could merge". He further testified that he was 40 to 50 feet ahead of two cars which were in the left-hand lane of ramp SGS. When he reached the junction point of the two ramps, and was about 100 feet ahead of a vehicle on ramp WGS, the delineators on his right "stopped" and his headlight did not illuminate the delineators on the "northerly section of ramp WGC at or near its convergence with ramp SGS". He then inexplicably proceeded across the merged lanes and crashed into the cable guide rails on the north side of the merged ramps. He stated that "at the point where the delineators ran out ... I was checking for traffic on my right, following the road, or actually checked for left, check for the traffic on my right. At that point I noticed there were no longer delineators. It was a rather confusing situation.". The next thing that he recalled seeing was the guide rail which was 30 to 40 feet in front of him. He sustained multiple injuries, the most serious of which resulted in the amputation of his left leg just below the knee.

Claimant admitted that he had traveled over ramp SGS twice before the accident during daylight hours, most recently two weeks before the accident, and that he had no trouble negotiating the curve at speeds of 35 to 40 miles per hour. He also had traveled over ramp WGC during daylight hours on at least four prior occasions. As a result of this prior experience, he knew that the ramps merged, although he did not know the precise location of the merger.

Claimant testified that he had observed the reflectorized delineators on both sides of the ramp before the accident and that the delineators had not terminated on the left side of the ramp when he last saw them. He further said that he saw the dashed white center line of the ramp which separates the right and left lanes of traffic and which continues around the curve, that he observed the center line on the night of the accident, that he was traveling approximately four feet to the right of this line and one foot from the center line of the right-hand lane just before the crash and that he had used both the center and edge lines to guide him. He testified that he neither made any adjustments in speed when he entered the area where the ramps merged nor when he no longer observed reflective markers on his right, and that he was accelerating up the ramp until shortly before impact, i.e., until "slightly after the point that the curve began".

William Foote, a witness to the accident, testified that he was behind two cars in the left-hand lane of ramp SGS and that he was driving slower than, and lagged behind, claimant who was in the right-hand lane ahead of him. "[D]ue to the curve ... and the two cars ...", Foote lost sight of claimant, but as he came around the curve he saw "some dust and a particle of something in the road" about 60 feet beyond the merger of the ramps. On cross-examination Foote explained that the two other cars "[e]vidently got a little ahead of [claimant]" and that he didn't think that "they ever seen [sic] [claimant] go over" and that he could see "the taillights of the cars that were in front of [claimant] going around the curve".

In dismissing the claim the Court of Claims relied upon Applebee v. State of New York, 308 N.Y. 502, 127 N.E.2d 289. It found that claimant "was fully aware of the existence of the curve" and that a curve sign "would have given ... no more information than was already available to him.". In additio the court found that the absence of the speed sign did not play a part "in the happening of this accident". Since no question is raised concerning the finding that the State breached its duty to claimant we consider only the question of causation.

The principle is well-established that where a duty has been breached an injured party may recover damages for "the proven harmful consequences proximately caused by the breach." (Johnson v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 378, 383, 372 N.Y.S.2d 638, 334 N.E.2d 590; see, also, Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401, 414, 413 N.Y.S.2d 895, 386 N.E.2d 807). It is plaintiff's "burden to show that defendants' conduct was a substantial causative factor in the sequence of events that led to [his] injury (see Restatement, Torts 2d, § 430; Prosser, Torts [4th ed], § 42)." (Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 520, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 407 N.E.2d 451; see, also, Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666; Sewar v. Gagliardi Bros. Serv., 69 A.D.2d 281, 289, 418 N.Y.S.2d 704, affd, 51 N.Y.2d 752, 432 N.Y.S.2d 367, 411 N.E.2d 786). That showing need not be made with absolute certitude nor exclude every other possible cause of injury (see Spett v. President Monroe Bldg. & Mfg. Corp., 19 N.Y.2d 203, 205, 278 N.Y.S.2d 826, 225 N.E.2d 527; Wragge v. Lizza Asphalt Constr. Co., 17 N.Y.2d 313, 321, 270 N.Y.S.2d 616, 217 N.E.2d 666; Dillon v. Rockaway Beach Hospital, 284 N.Y. 176, 179, 30 N.E.2d 373). It is sufficient that facts and circumstances are shown from which causation may be reasonably inferred (see Dunham v. Village of Canisteo, 303 N.Y. 498, 506, 104 N.E.2d 872; Sewar v. Gagliardi Bros. Serv., 69 A.D.2d 281, 289-290, 418 N.Y.S.2d 704, supra; Lee v. Flight Safety, 63 A.D.2d 994, 995-996, 406 N.Y.S.2d 133;...