New York Law Review

Tag: Sommer v. New York Telephone Co.

  • Sommer v. New York Telephone Co., 45 N.Y.2d 451 (1978): Double Parking Liability and Proximate Cause in New York City

    Sommer v. New York Telephone Co., 45 N.Y.2d 451 (1978)

    In New York City, where the Vehicle and Traffic Law’s exception for hazard vehicles does not apply, a public service corporation’s vehicle double-parked for non-essential work is unlawfully parked, and whether that violation proximately caused injuries is a jury question.

    Summary

    Plaintiffs, injured while watching a card game on a sidewalk, sued after being struck by a car driven by Defendant Quilter. Quilter, attempting to maneuver his car from a parking space, mounted the sidewalk and hit the plaintiffs. A New York Telephone Company truck was illegally double-parked nearby, potentially obstructing Quilter’s path. The trial court instructed the jury on the permissible double-parking for utility repairs, and the jury found both Quilter (70% liable) and the Telephone Company (30% liable) responsible. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment against the Telephone Company, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that the Telephone Company’s illegal double-parking could be a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries, a question for the jury to decide.

    Facts

    Plaintiffs were on the sidewalk of 118th Street in New York City. Defendant Quilter sought to move his car, parked on the north side of the one-way street. A New York Telephone Company truck was double-parked about one and a quarter car lengths ahead of Quilter’s car. The truck was parked approximately six inches from the second car ahead of Quilter’s vehicle. The Telephone Company employees were working in a building accessed through an alleyway. Quilter, with a learner’s permit, backed up, cleared the car in front, and turned right, ultimately mounting the sidewalk and striking the plaintiffs. The street was 29 feet wide, and the truck was 7 feet 2 inches wide. Plaintiffs were struck opposite the double-parked truck.

    Procedural History

    The Trial Court submitted the case to the jury, which found for the plaintiffs against both defendants. The Telephone Company’s motion for dismissal was denied. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, dismissing the complaint against the Telephone Company. The Appellate Division reasoned that the Vehicle and Traffic Law’s exception for hazard vehicles applied and Quilter’s testimony was incredible. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the jury verdict.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Section 1103(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, concerning exceptions for hazard vehicles, applies in New York City.

    2. Whether the Telephone Company’s illegally double-parked truck was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.

    Holding

    1. No, because New York City regulations supersede the Vehicle and Traffic Law regarding parking.

    2. Yes, because under the circumstances of this case, it was a question of fact for the jury to decide.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that Section 1103(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law does not apply in New York City because Section 1642 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law authorizes New York City to supersede the Vehicle and Traffic Law with its own regulations. Section 190 of the City Traffic Regulations explicitly states that enumerated sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, including section 1202, “shall not be effective in the City of New York.” The applicable regulation for double-parking in New York City is Section 81(c)(2), which only allows double-parking for commercial vehicles expeditiously loading or unloading, provided there is no unoccupied space or loading zone within 100 feet. Since the Telephone Company’s truck had been double-parked for four and a half hours, it was illegally parked.

    The court rejected the Appellate Division’s conclusion that Quilter’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and that the photographs conclusively showed the Continental proceeded in a straight line, stating that interpretation of the photographs involved evaluations of angle and perspective that are the essence of the jury’s function. The court emphasized that proximate cause was a jury question. Quoting Daly v. Casey, 38 NY2d 808, “However incredible the evidence may have been, as a practical matter it cannot be said that it was incredible as a matter of law, and therefore the complaint should not have been dismissed.” Considering Quilter’s testimony and the distances involved, the Court found a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that the double-parking was a concurrent cause. The court emphasized that the officer’s opinion about Quilter losing control was not binding, and that August’s testimony contradicting Quilter created an issue for the jury but did not make Quitter’s testimony incredible as a matter of law.