Skip to main content

Recent Developments: Appeals Court Makes Unusual Finding of Fact as "a Matter of Law" in Motor Vehicle Case

From the facts of the case, this is what sounds like happened:  The injured plaintiff was a passenger in an SUV. The SUV was behind a big tractor trailer that was carrying a load of gravel. The driver (I'm guessing) got annoyed about being behind a big, slow truck. So, the SUV passed the truck on the left.

The problem is that the exit the SUV driver wanted to get off on was coming up quickly, so the SUV swerved back in front of the tractor trailer. The truck driver slammed on his brakes, but still hit the SUV, sending it over an embankment.

The truck driver and the company that owned it moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case on the grounds that the truck driver had been confronted with a "sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of [his] own making", that he had no time to react otherwise than how he did, and that he acted reasonably under the circumstances.

The court acknowledged that it is normally up to a jury to decide who was at fault in such a situation.  But it then went ahead and said, however, we find ("as a matter of law"--because courts can normally only decide questions of law, not of fact) that, given the facts, the SUV driver was basically reckless, and the truck driver cannot be held at fault.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Dave & Buster’s Held Not Liable For Stabbing of Customer

When you operate a restaurant or a bar, etc., sometimes customers get attacked by other customers/patrons--for whatever reason. So when can the restaurant be held liable in situations like that? In what is a horrible story, in 2010, an 8-year-old boy was at a Dave & Buster’s with his family at The Source Mall in Westbury. The boy was playing a game when he was suddenly attacked and stabbed 5 times in the back by a 23-year-old man who testified in the case that he went there to stab someone.  [The man plead guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 14 years in prison .] The boy (through his parents) sued the attacker (who has no money, I assume), Dave & Buster’s, and the Mall. The boy alleged Dave & Buster’s failed to provide adequate security, which would have prevented the attack. Dave & Buster’s got the case dismissed against them at the trial court level, and the boy appealed. In a recent decision, the Second Department affirmed that...
Post a Comment
Read more