Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361 (1974)

Summary judgment may be granted in negligence cases where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the defendant’s conduct falls far below any permissible standard of due care.

Summary

This case addresses the propriety of summary judgment in a negligence action. The plaintiff, a passenger in the defendant’s car, sought summary judgment after being injured in a rear-end collision. The New York Court of Appeals held that summary judgment was appropriate because the defendant admitted to taking her eyes off the road while driving in heavy traffic, causing the accident. The court emphasized that while summary judgment is generally disfavored in negligence cases, it is permissible when the defendant’s conduct demonstrates a clear breach of the duty of care and there is no issue of contributory negligence.

Facts

On November 6, 1969, Jean Pomeroy (defendant) was driving her car with her daughter (plaintiff) as a passenger. While driving in heavy traffic, Pomeroy looked down to get a compact out of her purse. When she looked up, she realized she was too close to the car in front of her and crashed into its rear. The plaintiff, reading in the back seat, was injured as a result of the collision. Pomeroy admitted the circumstances of the accident at the scene and in a subsequent accident report.

Procedural History

The plaintiff sued her mother, Pomeroy, for personal injuries and moved for summary judgment. Special Term denied the motion, finding that the mother-daughter relationship created triable issues. The Appellate Division affirmed. Justice Shapiro dissented, arguing that there was no triable issue. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in a negligence action where the defendant admitted to causing a rear-end collision by taking her eyes off the road while driving in heavy traffic.

Holding

Yes, because the defendant’s uncontested admission established negligence as a matter of law, and there was no issue of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Court’s Reasoning

The court acknowledged that summary judgment is a drastic remedy but is appropriate when there are no genuine issues to be resolved at trial. While summary judgment is rare in negligence cases due to the fact-specific nature of reasonableness, it is permissible when the defendant’s conduct falls far below any permissible standard of due care and the plaintiff’s conduct is not involved or is clearly prudent. The court found that Pomeroy’s admission to taking her eyes off the road in heavy traffic and crashing into the car in front of her constituted negligence as a matter of law. The court stated that “when the suit is founded on a claim of negligence, the plaintiff will generally be entitled to summary judgment ‘only in cases in which there is no conflict at all in the evidence, the defendant’s conduct fell far below any permissible standard of due care, and the plaintiff’s conduct either was not really involved (such as with a passenger) or was clearly of exemplary prudence in the circumstances.’” Since the plaintiff was merely a passenger reading in the back seat, there was no issue of contributory negligence. The court emphasized that the case was “one of those rare cases which is ripe for summary judgment.” The court also noted that if the defendant’s insurance carrier believed that the insured was concealing a valid defense, the proper remedy was to disclaim liability.