Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Minor v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
Citations: 215 A.D.2d 218; 626 N.Y.S.2d 165; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5027
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 11, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
Judgment was entered on March 2, 1994, by Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), granting the motion for a directed verdict by the defendant, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, with no costs awarded. In this personal injury case, the plaintiff was driving on the Triborough Bridge at 35 miles per hour, exceeding the posted limit of 20 miles per hour. While changing lanes from the far left to the far right, she failed to see a TBTA tow truck, which was stopped in the right lane. The tow truck was equipped with operational strobe lights, flashers, and a large flashing directional arrow. The truck had only been stopped for one minute before the collision occurred, which was part of a brief inspection process expected to last three to four minutes. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the TBTA and its tow truck driver, Norman Mills, for not placing safety cones behind the stopped vehicle. However, expert testimony established that the TBTA's actions were consistent with industry standards, and the TBTA Safety Manual's coning requirement did not apply to this situation. The jury's initial verdict favoring the plaintiff was overturned because the evidence did not support a finding of negligence, and the alleged negligence was based on conjecture and speculation rather than proof. The court distinguished this case from a prior case cited by the plaintiff (Ramos v. Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth.), where the tow truck had been stationary longer and lacked operational safety signals. The court found the plaintiff's additional arguments to be without merit. The decision was affirmed without costs by Justices Nardelli, Williams, Tom, and Mazzarelli.