New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
Car and bus accidents can have devastating consequences, resulting in serious injuries or even death. When such accidents occur, it is important to determine who is at fault and who should be held liable for any damages that result. One case that dealt with this issue is Greiff v. New York City Transit Authority, 212 A.D.2d 253 (1st Dep’t 1995). In this blog, we will discuss the background of the case, the issues that it raised, and its implications for car and bus accidents.
Background
In Greiff v. New York City Transit Authority, the plaintiff, Donald Greiff, was driving his car when he was struck by a New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) bus. The accident occurred at an intersection controlled by traffic lights, and both the car and the bus had a green light when they entered the intersection. The bus was making a left turn, and the car was traveling straight through the intersection. The bus driver testified that he did not see the car until it was too late to avoid the collision.
Greiff suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident and sued the NYCTA for negligence. He argued that the bus driver was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to yield the right of way to his car. The NYCTA, in turn, argued that Greiff was also negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to take evasive action to avoid the collision.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the NYCTA, finding that Greiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court held that Greiff had an unobstructed view of the bus and should have been able to see it turning into the intersection. The court also found that Greiff had ample time to avoid the collision but failed to do so. Greiff appealed the decision.
Discussion
On appeal, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and held that there were issues of fact that precluded summary judgment. The court held that the evidence presented by both parties raised triable issues of fact as to the cause of the accident and the respective negligence of the parties.
The court noted that the fact that the bus had a green light did not necessarily mean that it had the right of way. The court held that the bus driver had a duty to exercise reasonable care in making the left turn, including keeping a proper lookout for other vehicles. The court also held that Greiff had a duty to exercise reasonable care in driving his car, including keeping a proper lookout and taking evasive action if necessary.
The court found that there were conflicting accounts of the accident and that a jury should determine the cause of the accident and the respective negligence of the parties. The court noted that there was evidence that the bus driver did not keep a proper lookout and that Greiff did take evasive action but was unable to avoid the collision.
The court also rejected the NYCTA’s argument that it was immune from liability under the doctrine of governmental immunity. The court held that the NYCTA could be held liable for its negligence, just like any other defendant.
Conclusion
Greiff v. New York City Transit Authority highlights the complexities of determining liability in car and bus accidents. When accidents occur, it is important to carefully review the facts and circumstances of the accident to determine who is at fault and who should be held liable for any damages that result.
In this case, the court held that there were issues of fact that precluded summary judgment and that a jury should determine the cause of the accident and the respective negligence of the parties. The court also rejected the NYCTA’s argument that it was immune from liability under the doctrine of governmental immunity, emphasizing that the NYCTA, as a government agency, can still be held accountable for its negligence just like any other defendant. If you suffered serious injuries in a bus accident, contact an experienced New York bus accident lawyer.