You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Gutierrez v. Hoyt Transportation Corp.

Citations: 117 A.D.3d 420; 985 N.Y.S.2d 44

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 1, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Supreme Court of Bronx County addressed a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants following an incident where the plaintiffs' infant daughter was struck by a school bus. The incident occurred as the child was fleeing from a disturbance on the sidewalk. The bus driver contended that there was no surrounding traffic and invoked the emergency doctrine, arguing he had only a few seconds to react upon noticing children in the street. The court examined whether the emergency doctrine applied, particularly focusing on the driver's situational awareness and the potential for him to have noticed the children earlier. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, pointing to unresolved factual issues concerning the driver's actions and the conditions leading up to the accident. The decision emphasized that the determination of whether the driver encountered a 'sudden and unforeseen occurrence' should be left to a factfinder, thus requiring further examination at trial. No costs were awarded in the ruling.

Legal Issues Addressed

Emergency Doctrine Defense

Application: The application of the emergency doctrine was questioned, as it required determining whether the driver should have been aware of the children earlier, thus impacting the driver's claim of facing a sudden and unforeseen occurrence.

Reasoning: The court highlighted that the driver’s claim of acting under the emergency doctrine—asserting that he had only seconds to react after noticing children in the street—depends on whether he should have noticed them earlier.

Factual Determination by Factfinder

Application: The case involves a factual determination regarding the driver's situational awareness and whether the incident was a sudden and unforeseen occurrence.

Reasoning: This determination of whether the driver faced a 'sudden and unforeseen occurrence' is left for a factfinder to resolve.

Summary Judgment Denial

Application: The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, indicating that there were factual issues that required resolution by a factfinder.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Bronx County, under Justice Mitchell J. Danziger, issued an order on July 18, 2012, affirming the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, with no costs awarded.