From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sandstrom v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1995
221 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 20, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Donald Sandstrom was involved in a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Route 25 and College Road in Selden, New York. Following the accident, the Selden Fire District (s/h/a Selden Fire Department, hereinafter Selden) and, allegedly, the Centereach Fire District (s/h/a Centereach Fire Department, hereinafter Centereach) were called to the scene. It is undisputed that the injured plaintiff was unconscious from the moment of the accident.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, negligence on the part of Selden and Centereach for their failure to timely offer aid at the accident scene. The plaintiffs contended that, due to an argument between Selden and Centereach regarding which district had proper jurisdiction, the injured plaintiff was not promptly treated and, thus, his injuries were exacerbated. The Supreme Court granted the separate motions of Centereach and Selden for summary judgment holding that they were immune from liability. We affirm.

As a general rule, a public entity is immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of its governmental functions, including police and fire protection, unless the injured person establishes a special relationship with the public entity which would create a special duty of protection with respect to that individual (see, Kircher v City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251, 255-256; Bonner v City of New York, 73 N.Y.2d 930, 932; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 260; Figueroa v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 A.D.2d 586). In the present case, the alleged negligence of Centereach and Selden occurred, if at all, in responding to the accident scene. This was undoubtedly in furtherance of their municipal function. Therefore, the plaintiffs were required to prove the existence of a special relationship. The evidence, however, fails to establish all of the elements of such a relationship. In particular, the requirement of justifiable reliance has not been satisfied (see, Cuffy v City of New York, supra, at 260). The injured plaintiff, due to his unfortunate situation, was in an unconscious state prior to, and at all times during, the treatment administered by the emergency service personnel dispatched to the scene. As such, he was totally unaware of their presence and could not rely on any of their assurances (see, Kircher v City of Jamestown, supra, at 257).

Absent evidence of reasonable detrimental reliance by the injured plaintiff, there is no basis for finding the existence of a special relationship (see, Kircher v City of Jamestown, supra, at 258). Accordingly, the general rule of governmental immunity precludes the imposition of liability against Centereach and Selden.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sandstrom v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1995
221 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Sandstrom v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:DONALD W. SANDSTROM et al., Appellants, v. GIL RODRIGUEZ et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 403

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Brookheaven

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and those branches of the appellants'…

Laratro v. City of New York

rtaking lulled plaintiff's coworker into a false sense of security causing her to forgo other available…