Fusco v. Hobbes
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Newvine v. Barzee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- FLOYD, R.L. v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Chen v. Century Motor Leasing, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered November 28, 2003. The judgment, upon a jury verdict, adjudged that plaintiff Jennifer Fusco and defendants were negligent and that the negligence of defendant Jason Hobbes was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by
We agree with Jason and Wayne, however, that the court erred in refusing to charge the emergency doctrine and that a new trial on liability therefore is required with respect to them. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the parties requesting the charge, we conclude that there is a reasonable view of the evidence that Jason was faced with an emergency (see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991], rearg denied 77 NY2d 990 [1991]). The emergency doctrine “recognizes that when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” (id.). Here, the jury could have reasonably found that Jason was “confronted by a sudden and unforeseen occurrence not of [his] own making,” and the emergency doctrine therefore should have been charged (id.; see Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 174-175 [2001]).
Jason and Wayne further contend that the court erred in precluding evidence of plaintiffs alcohol consumption. Prior to trial, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion in limine seeking to preclude defendants from questioning plaintiff with respect to her consumption of alcoholic beverages hours before the ac
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.