From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cataldo v. New York State Thruway Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1985
111 A.D.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

May 6, 1985

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.).


Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and claim dismissed.

Claimant was seriously injured in an automobile accident on the straight, center section of the Tappan Zee Bridge when the vehicle in which she was traveling was struck by an oncoming automobile which had crossed the median. The instant claim is based on the theory that claimant's injuries are, in part, the result of the defendant's failure to erect median barriers on the central section of the bridge. The Court of Claims held that defendant was negligent in this respect and awarded damages to claimant.

There must be a reversal and the claim must be dismissed. Although claimant's accident occurred in 1973 rather than 1977, the facts upon which she seeks to base her claim that the New York State Thruway Authority was negligent are in all other aspects identical to those described in Muller v. State of New York ( 108 A.D.2d 181). Because defendant's decision not to install median barriers was premised upon a reasonable public safety plan, it may not be held liable for claimant's injuries ( see, Muller v. State of New York, supra; Weiss v. Fote, 7 N.Y.2d 579). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cataldo v. New York State Thruway Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1985
111 A.D.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Cataldo v. New York State Thruway Authority

Case Details

Full title:CONNIE F. CATALDO, Respondent-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 6, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Friedman v. State of New York

The court based its holding on (1) its opinion that the Authority had overstated the value of the median mall…