Breitbart v. City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 77 (1976)

A jury may find negligence where a motorman had actual knowledge of a person’s presence and predicament and failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid an accident.

Summary

This case addresses the issue of negligence in a personal injury claim against the City of New York. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the complaint, holding that the jury was entitled to find the motorman negligent based on evidence suggesting he had prior knowledge of the decedent’s presence and the opportunity to avoid the accident. The court emphasized the jury’s role in assessing the facts and rejected the notion that the decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. This decision underscores the importance of a motorman’s responsibility to maintain a reasonable lookout and act prudently when aware of potential danger.

Facts

The decedent was involved in an accident with a New York City subway train. The specific details of the accident are not extensively laid out in the memorandum opinion, but the key fact is the claim that the motorman had actual knowledge of the decedent’s presence prior to the accident. A professional safety engineer testified regarding the physical conditions at the scene. This testimony, coupled with the motorman’s account, formed the basis for the jury’s assessment of negligence.

Procedural History

The case was initially tried before a jury, which found in favor of the plaintiff. The Appellate Division dismissed the complaint. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, ordering a new trial.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the jury was entitled to find that the motorman had actual knowledge of the decedent’s presence and predicament in time to avoid the accident.
2. Whether the decedent was contributorially negligent as a matter of law.

Holding

1. Yes, because the jury was entitled to find, based on the evidence presented, that the motorman had actual knowledge of the decedent’s presence and predicament prior to the moment at which he testified that he first saw him, and in time to afford a clear opportunity in the exercise of reasonable care to avoid the accident.
2. No, because it was error to hold that the decedent was contributorially negligent as a matter of law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the jury was entitled to consider the evidence, including the physical conditions at the scene and the testimony of the safety engineer, to determine whether the motorman had actual knowledge of the decedent’s presence. The court emphasized that the jury had the right to assess the credibility of the motorman’s testimony and to conclude that he had prior knowledge of the decedent’s predicament. The court also cited Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, indicating that there was some evidence that the motorman failed to maintain a reasonable lookout. Further, the court found that the Appellate Division erred in holding that the decedent was contributorially negligent as a matter of law. This suggests that the issue of contributory negligence was a question of fact properly left for the jury to decide. The court stated, “Even if it be assumed that the decedent was contributorially negligent, under the clear and explicit charge of the court, in the light of the physical conditions at the scene of the accident and in reliance on the testimony of the professional safety engineer, the jury was entitled to find that the motorman had actual knowledge of the decedent’s presence and predicament prior to the moment at which he testified that he first saw him and in time to afford a clear opportunity in the exercise of reasonable care to avoid the accident.”