Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York City - Court of Appeals: Drivers Who Cut Off, Liable For Rear-Endings

Published on:   June 16, 2008 10:34 AM
News Source: NY Daily News
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share

New York City - It’s probably a daily occurrence, one driver cuts off another, causing the second motorist to slam on the brakes and get rear-ended by a third vehicle.

Until Friday, the first driver - the reckless one who seemingly causes such accidents - couldn’t be held liable if he or she was not involved in the actual collision.

But the state’s top court, in a ruling against Suffolk County and a county cop, has done away with such absolution.

The Court of Appeals found that Officer Lee Weidl was 50% liable in a March 2003 wreck that injured another driver.

The cop was responding to a broken-down vehicle on the shoulder of the Long Island Expressway’s westbound service road during the morning rush hour when he changed lanes and suddenly slowed to a crawl, according to court records.

The driver behind him, Pamela Tutrani, now 61, of Wading River slammed on her brakes and stopped before hitting Weidl’s vehicle. But she was rear-ended by the driver behind her, Darlene Maldonado. Tutrani reinjured her spine in the wreck, and later needed shoulder surgery, said her attorney, Ken Shapiro. She hasn’t worked since.

Advertisement:

Because Weidl was not involved in the collision, the county argued in Tutrani’s civil suit that he was not the cause of Maldonado’s failure to stop.

But a Suffolk jury said Weidl’s reckless conduct and Maldonado’s negligence were equal factors, holding each 50% at fault and awarding Tutrani $200,000.

The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, citing precedents, reversed the judgment against Weidl, noting that Tutrani was able to stop without hitting Weidl’s police car.

The Court of Appeals held that it is “irrelevant” whether Tutrani managed to avoid hitting the officer’s car.

“Clearly, Officer Weidl’s actions created a foreseeable danger that vehicles would have to brake aggressively ... thereby increasing the risk of rear-end collisions,” the seven judges unanimously concluded.


More of today's headlines

Israel - A 42-year-old chronic sufferer of multiple sclerosis who called for help recently after suffering chest pains and breathing difficulties while tending her... Albany, NY - - The speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, is confronting a democratic upheaval in his Lower Manhattan district, where he has wielded power with token...

 

Total9

Read Comments (9)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM Anonymous Says:

Its about time

2

 Jun 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM Pashuteh Yid Says:

Used to be the rule was you are responsible for leaving enough space ahead of you so that even if the guy in front stopped short, you would not hit him. Now this will encourage tailgating and blaming the guy in front.

3

 Jun 16, 2008 at 12:51 PM Anonymous Says:

This seems like a good improvement, but is it enforcable?

Suppose a driver who is followed by a series of tailgaters slams brakes to avoid a danger, perhaps a dog running across the road, and then continues on.

Unbeknownst to this driver the 4th tailgater hits the 3rd tailgater.

Did the driver, and the 1st and 2nd tailgater, become guilty of leaving the scene of an accident?

Are police who block all lanes of a highway now responsible for any collisions even 100 car lengths back due to the traffic?

Are toll booths now responsible for triggering the sudden slowdown that can catch some drivers unaware?

Perhaps it will be that this new twist will only spread the burden if the initial slowing action was improper.

4

 Jun 16, 2008 at 01:32 PM Anonymous Says:

No, dude. Why don't you read the article first before commenting and asking your seemingly endless questions. The article says that the court will hold liable a driver who cuts off another driver and creates foreseeable risk of a rear-end collision. That's where the buck stops. Dogs running in front of cars, and toll booths, are not relevant to this situation. The court did not extend that risk to other fact patterns. What don't you understand?

5

 Jun 16, 2008 at 03:14 PM What a concept! Says:

This will hardly ever be enforced unless there are many good sams out there who will start writing down plate nums and reporting them to the police. Of course, this will NEVER happen.

6

 Jun 16, 2008 at 05:12 PM Anonymous Says:

First the officer probably had his emergency lights on - Second every crank who drives super slow and slams on brakes will claim they were cut off.

7

 Jun 17, 2008 at 07:50 PM Anonymous Says:

ridiculous!! leave enough room between yourself and the car in-front of you, and stop trying to pass the blame on others for your incompetent driving

8

 Jun 19, 2008 at 12:10 AM Ken Shapiro Says:

This case creates POTENTIAL responsibility on a driver that causes a collision even if that driver was not involved inthe actual collison (I am the Ken Shapiro Attorney in the article that argued the case)

9

 Jun 19, 2008 at 08:09 AM Anonymous Says:

Who ever said the lights of the police car were on, well they were not! He pu them on after he cut the lanes onbviusly because he saw what happened.

10

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!