NICHOLAS V. MIDEY
Synopsis
In an Decision following a remand from the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, this Court found that the intersection of Paddy Lane and NYS Route 350 constituted a dangerous condition, and was a proximate cause of the accident which resulted in the death of William Brown and personal injuries to Linda M. Brown. Case information
UID: 2011-009-112 Claimant(s): LINDA M. BROWN as Administratrix of the Estate of WAYNE BROWN Claimant short name: BROWN Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 108961 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. LaDUCA LAW FIRM, LLP BY: Anthony J. LaDuca, Esq., Of Counsel. Claimant's attorney: THE PALMIERE LAW FIRM BY: Norman Andrew Palmiere, Esq., Of Counsel. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General Defendant's attorney: BY: Edward F. McArdle, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel. Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: October 3, 2011 City: Syracuse Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned 2011-009-113 case) Decision
Claimant Linda M. Brown instituted these two claims following a motor vehicle accident which occurred on April 27, 2003 at the intersection of New York State Route 350 and Paddy Lane in the Town of Ontario, Wayne County. At the time of this accident, claimant's husband, Wayne Brown, was operating a motorcycle, proceeding north on Route 350, with claimant as a passenger. Mr. Brown collided with a pickup truck operated by one Henry S. Friend, who had started to drive his vehicle straight across Route 350 from Paddy Lane after stopping at the stop sign at this intersection.
These two claims were then consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial. In a Decision dated June 30, 2008 (Brown v State of New York, UID #2008-009-182, #2008-009-183)(1) following a trial on the issue of liability, this Court dismissed both claims. A judgment dismissing both claims was entered August 8, 2008. Claimant pursued an appeal, and in a Memorandum and Order dated December 30, 2010 (79 AD3d 1579), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the judgment and remitted both claims for a determination on the issue of proximate cause. In accordance with the directive from the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, this Decision addresses that issue.
The essential facts and pertinent testimony pertaining to these claims, as well as the issue to be resolved herein, were fully developed in this Court's previous trial Decision and the Memorandum and Order from the Appellate Division, and therefore will not be repeated herein, except where necessary to resolve the issue of proximate cause. In its Memorandum and Order, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department stated that "[t]he appropriate inquiry [is] whether defendant was made aware of a dangerous condition and failed to take action to remedy it and whether the dangerous condition was the proximate cause of the accident" (79 AD3d at 1582, citation omitted).
Evidence at the liability trial established that in 1999, the Town Board of the Town of Ontario had requested that the State Department of Transportation (DOT) conduct a traffic study of the intersection, and had specifically requested that a blinking caution light be placed there. Evidence further established that although the study had been commenced by DOT, it had been effectively abandoned prior to the accident which formed the basis of these claims.
Based on this evidence, as well as evidence of prior accidents occurring at this intersection, this Court determined that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition, and that the State had actual notice of this dangerous condition. Because it had not completed the requested traffic study, this Court also found that the State was not entitled to the governmental immunity defense provided by Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579, rearg denied 8 NY2d 934).
These findings were affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, leaving as the only issue for resolution by this Court the question as to whether this dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the accident. As framed by the Appellate Division's Decision, this Court must determine "whether the dangerous condition of the intersection because of the vertical curve in the line of sight looking south from Paddy Lane, combined with the speed limit of 55 miles per hour and the absence of four-way stop signs at the intersection, 'may be deemed a proximate cause of the accident' "(79 AD3d at 1584, citing Scheemaker v State of New York, 125 AD2d 964, 965, affd 70 NY2d 985).
At the trial, Edward G. Parrone, P.E., was qualified by the Court as an expert in engineering, and provided testimony on behalf of the claimant with regard to the visibility limitations caused by the vertical curve on Route 350 south of the Paddy Lane intersection. Mr. Parrone testified that based upon his personal inspection of the intersection, the vertical curve impaired the ability of an operator of a vehicle stopped on Paddy Lane to observe a vehicle proceeding northbound, south of the intersection, on Route 350. Specifically, Mr. Parrone testified that when a vehicle was approximately 900 feet south from the intersection, a driver stopped at the intersection would only be able to see the top third of a vehicle. He further testified that the entire vehicle would not become visible to drivers at the intersection until it was 550 feet from the intersection. As a result, Mr. Parrone concluded that a driver stopped at the intersection of Paddy Lane had a much shorter time in which to view vehicles approaching from the south because that driver would not be able to view that vehicle in its totality until it was only 550 feet from the intersection.
Testimony also established the fact that there was a speed limit of 55 miles per hour on Route 350 in this area. Additionally, the Court notes that both Mr. Parrone and Mr. Larry Sherman (the Regional Traffic Engineer for the Department of Transportation) agreed that if four-way stop signs had been installed at this intersection, this accident would have been avoided, since Mr. Brown would have been required to first decelerate, and then bring his motorcycle to a complete stop at the intersection.
In remitting this matter for a determination of proximate cause, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, also provided guidance to this Court, by stating that "a claimant need only establish that the absence of safety measures 'contributed to the happening of the accident by materially increasing the risk,' or by 'greatly increasing the probability of its occurrence' " (79 AD3d at 1585, citations omitted).
Based upon a consideration of the testimony and the entire record, there is no question that the absence of four-way stop signs at this intersection materially increased the risk of this accident. As previously stated, Mr. Sherman, who testified on behalf of the State, acknowledged that the only safety measure which could have prevented this accident, if implemented, was the installation of a four-way stop, since that would have required through-traffic on Route 350 to come to a complete stop at Paddy Lane.
In addition to the absence of four-way stop signs, however, and based upon the testimony presented, this Court must also conclude that the sight restrictions created by the vertical curve on Route 350 south of Paddy Lane, when combined with the 55 miles per hour speed limit on Route 350, prevented Mr. Friend from observing Mr. Brown and claimant as they approached the intersection on Route 350.
Based upon this finding that the combination of the vertical curve on Route 350 south of Paddy Lane, the speed limit of 55 miles per hour on Route 350, and the absence of four-way stop signs at the intersection of Paddy Lane and Route 350, were a proximate cause of the accident, the Court finds that the State is liable in negligence and must respond in damages.
The Court must therefore address the issue of comparative negligence.
Although there was no testimony at trial as to the specific speed of Mr. Brown's motorcycle at the time of the accident, "the record demonstrates that decedent was operating the motorcycle 'within the law and in accordance with common practice,' " (79 AD3d at 1585, citation omitted). Mrs. Brown's testimony at trial confirmed that Mr. Brown was an experienced motorcycle operator, and that the motorcycle on which they were riding was in excellent condition. Additionally, Stephen Sklenar, a Sergeant with the Wayne County Sheriff's Department, conducted an accident reconstruction and concluded that Mr. Brown was not speeding, and did not contribute in any way to this accident. Accordingly, there is no basis whatsoever to attribute any comparative negligence to claimant or Mr. Brown.
Additionally, testimony at trial established that Mr. Friend, the operator of the pickup truck involved in the accident, came to a complete stop at the intersection of Paddy Lane and Route 350 prior to proceeding into the intersection. Testimony further established that Mr. Friend carefully entered the intersection after looking both ways, but simply was unable to see the motorcycle operated by Mr. Brown at any time before the accident occurred. Accordingly, the Court does not attribute any comparative negligence to Mr. Friend.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the State is 100% liable for this accident.
Any motions not heretofore ruled upon are hereby denied.
The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to enter an interlocutory judgment on the issue of liability in accordance with this decision. The Court will set this matter down for a trial on the issue of damages as soon as practicable.
LET INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
October 3, 2011
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims