Ranaudo v. Key

• Decision Date: 21 April 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03160,921 N.Y.S.2d 407,83 A.D.3d 1315
• Parties: Steven RANAUDO et al., Appellants,v.Joe C. KEY et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

83 A.D.3d 1315
921 N.Y.S.2d 407
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03160

Steven RANAUDO et al., Appellants,
v.
Joe C. KEY et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

April 21, 2011.

[921 N.Y.S.2d 407]

Scarzafava & Basdekis, L.L.P., Oneonta (Theodoros Basdekis of counsel), for appellants.Osborn, Reed & Burke, L.L.P., Rochester (Thomas C. Burke of counsel), for Joe C. Key and another, respondents.Taylor & Associates, Albany (Paul J. Catone of counsel), for Harold S. Joy and another, respondents.Before: SPAIN, J.P., LAHTINEN, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.GARRY, J.

[83 A.D.3d 1315] Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered April 13, 2010 in Otsego County, which, among other things, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

At approximately 8:07 P.M. on February 27, 2007, plaintiff Steven Ranaudo (hereinafter plaintiff) was in the passenger seat of a vehicle traveling eastbound on Interstate 88 ¹ in Otsego County when the vehicle—

[921 N.Y.S.2d 408]

driven by plaintiff's son—encountered two tractor trailers ahead and almost side-by-side occupying both the driving (right) and passing (left) lanes at less than the posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. The tractor trailer occupying the driving lane was owned by defendant Hartt Transportation Systems and was being operated by defendant Harold S. Joy. Defendant Joe C. Key, operating a tractor trailer owned by defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., was occupying the passing lane, in front of the Ranaudo vehicle, attempting to overtake Joy. According to plaintiff, Key's tractor trailer took around six minutes or six miles to pass Joy's vehicle [83 A.D.3d 1316] and return to the driving lane. Unbeknownst to the occupants of the Ranaudo vehicle, and approximately two minutes before Key returned to the driving lane, Key heard over the CB radio that there was an oncoming vehicle traveling the wrong way (westward) in the eastbound passing lane somewhere on the roadway ahead. Key later testified that he tried to signal to Joy, so that Joy would let him get ahead to pass. Joy turned off his cruise control to slow down his vehicle.² Within seconds of Key's passing of Joy and moving into the driving lane, the oncoming vehicle, driven by Jaime Rudnitsky, struck the rear driver side of Key's trailer, continued westbound and struck the Ranaudo vehicle head-on, ultimately coming to rest underneath Joy's tractor trailer. Rudnitsky died at the scene.

Plaintiff and his wife, derivatively, commenced this action against Key, Joy and their employers, seeking damages for the injuries sustained as a result of the collision.³ Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Key and Joy breached their duty of care to them by not completing or, in the case of Joy, not permitting the pass of another vehicle as quickly as possible. Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment as to liability. Supreme Court granted defendants' motions. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.

To maintain an action for negligence, it must be shown that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff that the defendant breached and, further, that the alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries ( see Kunz v. New Netherlands Routes, Inc., 64 A.D.3d 956, 957, 882 N.Y.S.2d 565 [2009]; Kampff v. Ulster Sanitation, 280 A.D.2d 797, 797, 720 N.Y.S.2d 288 [2001] ). Motorists generally have a duty to operate their vehicles “with reasonable care taking into account the actual and potential dangers existing from weather,...