The facts are not disputed. On the morning of Monday, January 24, 2022, Plaintiff, Ivanna White, was
Question:
The facts are not disputed. On the morning of Monday, January 24, 2022, Plaintiff, Ivanna White, was riding her bicycle northbound on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. Ocean Avenue is a four-lane road. She was in the right lane. Behind her was Earnest Carter, Defendant, driving his automobile. As Ivanna approached the intersection with Oak Street, she noticed steel plates in the roadway covering up some road construction work. Ivanna, afraid that her bicycle might slip on the steel plates, moved over into that part of the left lane not covered by the plates. Ivanna successfully negotiated the steel plates. However, a motorist behind Ivanna in the left lane sounded his horn. This caused Ivanna to shift back over into the right lane where she struck the side of Carter's car as Carter was passing Ivanna on the right.
Ivanna was injured and has sued Earnest Carter for negligence.
LAW
There is no dispute about the facts. Thus, there is no disagreement that Ivanna did not signal by hand that she was changing lanes as she was required to do by New York law. There is also no disagreement that Carter did not sound his horn prior to passing White on the right as he was required to do by New York law. White's version of the elements chart is below.
Element | Fact | Legal Conclusion |
Duty of Care | Carter was driving behind White. | Element met: Carter owed White a duty of care. |
Breach of Duty | Carter failed to sound his horn | Element met: Carter breached his duty by not sounding his horn prior to passing on the right. |
Causation | ||
Injury | White suffered physical and financial harm. | Element met |
The case turns on the element of causation.
Defendant: Let me give you some additional legal guidance. NY Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 provides that "A cyclist traveling on a public road, street, or highway in New York, is required to provide a hand signal prior to any turn or lane change to warn others of the impending movement." In addition, you know that a motion for summary judgment has two elements: (1) no dispute as to facts, (2) relief as a matter of law. Thus, from Carter's standpoint, he cannot be negligent because the legal dispute is the outcome of White's failure to provide a hand signal prior to moving into the right lane on Ocean Avenue. That is, because White did not signal by hand that she was changing lanes, as required by New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146, Carter was unaware that White was changing lanes. Carter's motion claims that White's assertion that Carter caused the accident is factually and legally incorrect.
Your analysis and, hence your memo for Carter, should assert that Carter did not cause the accident because White did not give a hand signal; therefore, he did not know that White was changing lanes.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant moves pursuant to New York Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment against Plaintiff and in so moving avers as follows.
(1) There is no dispute as to facts.
(2) Plaintiff was riding her bicycle on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn on January 24, 2022, and was injured when her bicycle collided with Defendant's motor vehicle.
(3) Plaintiff was originally traveling in the right lane and had switched to the left lane to avoid steel plates remaining in the roadway from road construction activities.
(4) Defendant admits that he did not sound his horn as he passed Plaintiff on her right.
(5) Plaintiff did not signal a lane change from the left lane back to the right lane as required by NY Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163.
(6) Although Defendant did not sound his horn as he passed Plaintiff on her right, he did not cause the accident.
(7) Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to relief as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.
Auditing A Practical Approach with Data Analytics
ISBN: 978-1119401742
1st edition
Authors: Raymond N. Johnson, Laura Davis Wiley, Robyn Moroney, Fiona Campbell, Jane Hamilton