From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. Morford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

November 10, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the automobile in which he was a passenger was involved in a one-car accident. Defendant driver admitted that he fell asleep at the wheel. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff on the issue of defendant's negligence (CPLR 4401) at the close of defendant's proof. A motion for a directed verdict should be granted only if the jury could not find for the nonmoving party by any rational process, and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth., 41 N.Y.2d 200, 202; Van Syckle v Powers, 106 A.D.2d 711, 713, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 609; Ehlinger v Board of Educ., 96 A.D.2d 708, 709; Le May v Frankel, 80 A.D.2d 665; Wessel v Krop, 30 A.D.2d 764, 765). To direct a verdict in this case, the court necessarily found, as a matter of law, that defendant had warning of the likelihood of his falling asleep (Aiello v Garahan, 91 A.D.2d 839, 840, affd 58 N.Y.2d 1078; Vignola v Britts, 11 A.D.2d 801). We find that, on the evidence presented at trial, a rational jury could have found that although defendant had warning that he was tired, he did not have warning that he was likely to fall asleep. "Weariness, as everyone knows who has tasted it, is a matter of degree; and sleep sometimes presses down without warning. Its presence is not always readily predictable, even with reasonable care and foresight" (Butler v Albert, 1 A.D.2d 43, 44; see also, Purchase v Jeffrey, 33 A.D.2d 620). In our view, the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury concerning defendant's negligence, and a directed verdict was improperly granted.

The trial court properly denied defendant's request to instruct the jury on the doctrine of express assumption of risk. Defendant wholly failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he was absolved of his duty of due care by express agreement of the plaintiff to assume the risk (Arbegast v Board of Educ., 65 N.Y.2d 161).

Because a new trial is required, it is not necessary that we reach defendant's remaining contentions.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. Morford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Reynolds v. Morford

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN REYNOLDS, Respondent, v. CREIGHTON MORFORD et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1986

Citations

124 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Superb Health Foods Corp., Schron v. Marino

We further note that if we were to construe the court's action in withholding the counterclaims from the jury…

Spivak v. Heyward

Aiello v. Garahan (supra), however, was explicitly overruled by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in…