In Barahona v. America Recycle, LLC, the New York Supreme Court (Queens County) on Sept. 30, 2013 granted summary judgment to plaintiff passenger, but only as to his alleged culpable conduct.
In this two-car accident case, plaintiff alleged that he sustained personal injuries after the car in which he was a passenger (and which was driven by defendant Cea) was struck by a truck owned by defendant America Recycle and driven by defendant Rivera.
The court initially noted that plaintiff’s motion was “in effect only for summary judgment on the issue of whether plaintiff himself was at fault in the happening of the accident”, in light of issues of fact regarding how the accident occurred:
Here, the proof submitted by the respective parties presents conflicting versions of how the accident occurred. The plaintiff asserts that the Cea vehicle was stopped waiting to make a left turn when it was struck in the rear portion of the vehicle by the Rivera truck which allegedly entered the intersection when it was unsafe to do so. Rivera on the other hand alleges that Cea was in the right lane of 59th Avenue and attempted to make a left turn in front of his vehicle from the right lane. Therefore there is clearly a question of fact as to whether one or both of the defendants were negligent in the operation of their vehicle. Therefore, liability as between the two drivers involved in the accident which occurred in an intersection controlled by a traffic signal has yet to be determined.
It then explained why plaintiff, an “innocent passenger,” was entitled to summary judgment under these circumstances:
The plaintiff satisfied his prima facie burden of establishing his freedom from comparative negligence and is entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of his own liability. … Although the evidence submitted demonstrates there is a question of fact with respect to the liability for the accident as between the driver of the host vehicle, Mr. Cea and defendant Mr. Rivera, plaintiff was an innocent passenger who cannot be found at fault under any version of how the accident occurred. In opposition, the defendants have failed to raise a question of fact as to the plaintiff’s culpable conduct.
[T]he right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers. (Emphasis added.)