The Second Judicial Department for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, reversed a jury’s verdict because of the lower court’s failure to provide the jury with an instruction on the appropriate statutory standard whereby the violation constituted negligence per se. See Barbara Moore v. City of New York, et al., ____ A.D.3d ___ 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 04483 (2d Dept. 2021). As the Trial Court never instructed the jury on the applicable standard to apply to the facts of the case, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment at the trial.
In Moore, the plaintiff was riding her bicycle on the street and approached a traffic light which was red upon her approach. The plaintiff stopped her bicycle along the side of defendants’ vehicle, which was also stopped at the red light. The defendants’ vehicle did not use its turn signal as the plaintiff approached the stopped vehicle and the plaintiff had no warning that the defendants intended to change direction. Upon the light changing from red to green, the plaintiff proceeded to ride her bicycle straight while defendants’ vehicle turned right, thereby striking the plaintiff and running her over. Due to the subject accident, plaintiff sustained serious injuries and the underlying action commenced.
During a bifurcated trial, the plaintiff testified to the above-referenced factual situation. The defendants testified that it was the first vehicle stopped at the red light and prior to the light changing to green, the defendants activated the vehicle’s right turn signal; after the light changed and defendants checked its vehicle’s mirror, he slowly turned the vehicle never seeing the plaintiff. The defendants deny ever hitting the plaintiff or her bicycle. The Trial Court instructed that the defendants were only required to place the plaintiff on reasonable notice of defendants’ intent to turn right and that defendants were “not required to signal at least 100 feet before turning his vehicle.” Ultimately, the jury found the defendants were not negligent and the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint; the plaintiff then appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the Trial Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint as “[c]ourts are ‘obligated to interpret a statute to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words.’” The Vehicle and Traffic Law was unambiguous and clear thereby requiring the defendants to signal “continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet.” By defendants’ own testimony, the vehicle was not stopped shifting from a parked position but stopped at a red light which required an operator to signal continuously. Moreover, the unambiguous nature of the statute when combined with the trial facts, required the Trial Court to properly instruct the jury of the appropriate standards establishing the negligence per se of the defendants.
From a defense perspective, Moore teaches us the importance of understanding the legislative intent of the alleged violations of laws, statutes, and regulations upon receipt of a plaintiff’s discovery responses to adequately prepare viable defenses to asserted claims; the unambiguous language and the clear intent of the laws, statutes, and regulations will affect the progression of a trial as well as the ultimate outcome during a trial. Therefore, during the course of a litigation, by understanding the legislative intent, the defense would have adequate warning of any changing direction whether the court, the plaintiff, or the defendant asserts the change during the course of the litigation for the benefit of the defense.