Ortola v. Bouvier
| Citation | 488 N.Y.S.2d 934,110 A.D.2d 1077 |
| Parties | Gina ORTOLA, Respondent, v. Clark J. BOUVIER, Respondent, and Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc., Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1985 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Moot & Sprague by Harry Mooney, Buffalo, for appellant.
Allen, Lippes & Shonn by Eric Bloom, Buffalo, for respondent Ortola.
Canale, Madden & Burke by Maurice Sykes, Buffalo, for respondent Bouvier.
Before HANCOCK, J.P., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, DENMAN and O'DONNELL, JJ.
Plaintiff was a passenger on a bus owned and operated by defendant Niagara Frontier Transit System, Inc. (NFT) which was traveling in a southerly direction on Bailey Avenue. Plaintiff got off the bus at Minnesota Avenue where the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal and proceeded to cross Bailey Avenue, passing in front of the stationary bus. As she neared the center of the street, she was struck by a car driven by defendant Bouvier in a southerly direction on Bailey Avenue. Special Term denied NFT's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff and the cross-claiming defendant, Bouvier. We reverse.
Before a defendant may be held liable for negligence, it must be demonstrated that defendant owes a duty to plaintiff. "In the absence of a duty, there is no breach and without a breach there is no liability" (Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 782, 390 N.Y.S.2d 393, 358 N.E.2d 1019). The question of the existence of a duty in any particular set of circumstances is entirely one of law to be determined by the courts (Donohoe v. Copiague Union Free School Dist., 64 A.D.2d 29, 33, 407 N.Y.S.2d 874, affd. 47 N.Y.2d 440, 418 N.Y.S.2d 375, 391 N.E.2d 1352). Here, plaintiff was afforded a safe place to alight from the bus and, in fact, did leave the bus and proceed safely to the curb of the sidewalk and thence the crosswalk. By then the passenger carrier relationship between plaintiff and NFT had terminated.
The only act of negligence on the part of NFT asserted by plaintiff is that the bus driver may have stopped the bus partly in the crosswalk. Upon any view of the facts, however, it cannot be concluded that such conduct proximately caused the accident. Plaintiff made an independent decision to pass in front of the standing bus into Bailey Avenue where she was struck by another vehicle. These were intervening acts which preclude a finding that the action of the bus driver was a proximate cause of the accident (see Brooks v. Manhattan and Bronx...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blye v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
...bus, and that MABSTOA, having safely discharged Rodriguez onto the bus stop had fullfilled its duty to her. Accord, Ortola v. Bouvier, 110 A.D.2d 1077, 488 N.Y.S.2d 934. Even when the bus has come to a stop within steps of a hazardous sidewalk condition, as long as the passenger has safely ......
-
O'Connor v. Ronnie Cab Corp.
...independent decision to pass in front of the standing bus into (the)(r)oad where he was struck by another vehicle”]; Ortola v. Bouvier, 110 A.D.2d 1077, 488 N.Y.S.2d 934 ; see also Georges v. Rajnarine, 277 A.D.2d at 284, 715 N.Y.S.2d 81 ; Matter of Eisenberg v. Village of Mamaroneck, 137 A......
-
Hopping v. Connors
...of the block (but see, Rodriguez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., supra, at 543, 498 N.Y.S.2d 826; Ortola v. Bouvier, 110 A.D.2d 1077, 1078, 488 N.Y.S.2d 934), nothing in the record supports a finding that its placement--or, for that matter, Hopping's decision to cross wher......
-
Diedrick v. City of New York
...three steps before she fell (see, Rodriguez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, supra; Ortola v. Bouvier, 110 A.D.2d 1077, 488 N.Y.S.2d 934). That testimony, in conjunction with that of her husband, also established that Mrs. Diedrick's decision to proceed as she did w......