Bello v. Transit Authority of New York City
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
12 A.D.3d 58, 783 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2004)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Five-year-old Jessica Bello (plaintiff) and her mother were passengers on a bus operated by the Transit Authority of New York City (authority) (defendant). The bus driver suddenly stopped the bus when the passengers began panicking about a large, ticking bag that a strange-acting man left behind when he got off. Among other things, the passengers told the driver that there was a bomb on the bus. Bello sued the authority for negligence, alleging that she was injured due to the sudden stop. The authority denied that it had been negligent and asserted a comparative-negligence defense. The authority did not, however, plead the emergency doctrine as an affirmative defense. Under the emergency doctrine, a person was not negligent if the person faced sudden and unexpected circumstances that left the person with no time to contemplate or weigh alternative conduct, unless the person acted negligently even in light of the emergency. The authority moved for summary judgment based on the emergency doctrine. Bello responded that the supreme court should not consider the emergency doctrine because the authority failed to plead it as an affirmative defense. The supreme court granted summary judgment to the authority. Bello appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fisher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
