General

Victoria A. Sarosy et al., Appellants, v. David Scheina, Respondent

225 A.D.2d 493639 N.Y.S.2d 817·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1996·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Victoria A. Sarosy et al., Appellants, v David Scheina, Respondent. [639 NYS2d 817] [MAJORITY] A reasonable view of the evidence supports the jury’s findings that, although defendant operated his vehicle negligently, the sole proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff’s failure to drive with her car lights on as she approached the intersection; such findings are not inconsistent (see, Gross v Napoli, 216 AD2d 524). There is no merit to plaintiffs’ claim that the court’s instruction that each party was under a duty "to have the automobile under reasonable control and to keep a proper lookout under the circumstances then existing, to see and be aware of what was in their view and to use reasonable care to avoid an accident” did not adequately convey the principle set forth in PJI 2:77 that drivers are negligent if they fail to see that which they should have seen. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.