Dalal v. City of New York Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Описание: Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Dalal v. City of New York | 692 N.Y.S.2d 468 (1999)

In general, when a person violates a statute that governs the operation of an automobile, that person is presumed to have been negligent, which is known as negligence per se. However, such a presumption is rebuttable by evidence justifying or excusing the violation, or by establishing that the person was acting with due care and wasn’t negligent under the circumstances. In the 1999 case Dalal versus City of New York, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, considered whether a driver’s violation of a New York statute constituted negligence per se.

Krishna Dalal was driving his vehicle on Sixty-Sixth Avenue in Queens, New York, when he came to a stop at a stop sign. At the same time, Alicia Ramdhani-Mack was driving her vehicle on Booth Street and was approaching the intersection where Booth meets Sixty-Sixth Ave.

As Dalal was stopped, he looked both ways and, without seeing anything, began to drive straight through the intersection. When Dalal was about halfway through, his vehicle was struck on the driver’s side by Ramdhani-Mack’s vehicle, who attempted to swerve out of the way but couldn’t avoid the collision. As a result of the collision, Dalal suffered injuries.

At the time, Ramdhani-Mack was nearsighted and wore glasses, but she wasn’t wearing them at the time of the accident. In fact, Ramdhani-Mack’s driver’s license and state statute required her to wear glasses while driving, though she claimed she was able to see without them.

Subsequently, Dalal sued the City of New York and Ramdhani-Mack in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, based on negligence, seeking to recover damages for his injuries. Prior to trial, the action against the City of New York was discontinued.

At trial, Dalal raised Ramdhani-Mack’s failure to wear glasses as proof of her negligence. Further, Dalal sought a jury instruction that Ramdhani-Mack’s violation of the state statute constituted negligence per se. The court refused to allow Dalal to cross-examine Ramdhani Mack on the issue of her failure to wear glasses and denied the requested jury instruction. The jury then found that Ramdhani-Mack wasn’t negligent, and the court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint. Dalal appealed the decision to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/dalal-v...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/dalal-v...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  
Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries