Summary
The Appellate Division reviewed a trial court order granting summary judgment on liability and dismissing comparative negligence defenses in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. The court modified the order by denying summary judgment on liability because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant drivers, but affirmed the dismissal of the comparative negligence defenses since the plaintiff proved he was an innocent passenger free from culpable conduct. The court further held that the summary judgment motion was not premature.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Uber defendants' affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on liability against the Uber defendants.
Holdings
- The plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Uber defendants' affirmative defenses because he showed no contributory negligence and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
- Summary judgment on liability against the Uber defendants is denied because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the driver, Gerbeau, was negligent.
Key quotations
“The right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers.” (at 1)
“A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant.” (at 2)
Factual background
The plaintiff, Shawn M. Gordon, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Cavion Leighton Johnson that collided with a vehicle driven by Jean M. Gerbeau. Gordon sued the Uber entities alleging negligent hiring and supervision of Gerbeau. The Uber defendants asserted affirmative defenses of comparative negligence.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County entered an order on September 28, 2022 granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability against the Uber defendants and dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses of comparative negligence. The Uber defendants appealed.
Remand instructions
Delete the provision granting summary judgment on liability against the Uber defendants and substitute a provision denying that branch of the motion; affirm the remainder of the order.