Dalal v. City of New York
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
692 N.Y.S.2d 468 (1999)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
After Alicia Ramdhani-Mack (defendant) was in an automobile collision with Krishna Dalal (plaintiff), he sued her in a New York state court. Dalal claimed to have stopped at the stop sign and looked both ways before proceeding into the intersection. Ramdhani-Mack claimed that she attempted to avoid the collision but lacked time. Ramdhani-Mack’s driver’s license required her to wear corrective lenses, which she was not wearing at the time of the accident. She claimed that she was able to see without them. At trial, Dalal sought to raise Ramdhani-Mack’s failure to wear corrective lenses as a violation of N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 509(3). Dalal further sought a jury instruction that Ramdhani-Mack’s violation of § 509(3) constituted negligence per se. The court did not allow either of Dalal’s requests. The jury determined that Dalal was not entitled to recover because his own negligence was the sole cause of his injury. Dalal appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
