Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews lower court orders granting and denying summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from a collision between the plaintiff's vehicle and a municipal snowplow. The court addresses whether the snowplow was exempt from traffic rules under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) and whether triable issues of fact preclude summary judgment on claims of comparative negligence and reckless disregard. Reversing in part and affirming in part, the court holds that factual disputes exist regarding the snowplow's operations and the plaintiff's conduct, warranting denial of both parties' summary judgment motions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's comparative negligence affirmative defense should be dismissed via summary judgment.
- Whether Vehicle and Traffic Law §1103(b) bars liability for the snowplow, justifying summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
- Whether the trial court's orders should be affirmed, reversed, or remanded.
Holdings
- The appellate division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the comparative negligence affirmative defense, finding triable issues of fact.
- The appellate division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that the exemption under §1103(b) requires the vehicle to be actually engaged in work at the time of the accident and to act with reckless disregard, issues of fact that preclude summary judgment.
- The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the eleventh affirmative defense.
Key quotations
“[T]he issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant's affirmative defense of comparative negligence.” (808)
“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) exempts snowplows and certain other emergency vehicles that are "actually engaged in work on a highway" from the rules of the road, and these emergency vehicles may be held liable only for damages caused by an act done in "reckless disregard for the safety of others".” (712)
Factual background
Bellantoni was driving behind a snowplow owned by the Village of Tarrytown on Route 119 during a snowstorm. The snowplow attempted a U‑turn at an intersection. Bellantoni alleges the plow turned left across all lanes without warning, striking his vehicle. The plow driver testified he was actively plowing, had his turn signal on, and did not see Bellantoni.
Procedural history
The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the eleventh affirmative defense (VTL §1103(b)) and granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the first affirmative defense (comparative negligence). It later granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bellantoni appealed the July 14 order and cross‑appealed the August 8 order.