Qualified Immunity: Hazard Vehicles Working on a Highway
Courts have offered considerably more protection to operators of hazard vehicles such as snowplows and street sweepers than is afforded to law enforcement vehicles and ambulances under VTL §1104.
September 30, 2022 at 11:00 AM
16 minute read
New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (hereinafter VTL) §1103(b) creates an exception to the general rule that vehicle owners and drivers may be held liable for damages proximately caused by their negligence. The exception protects drivers of hazard vehicles (snowplows, street sweepers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, etc.) from being held to the ordinary standard of negligence. Instead, they will be held to the reckless disregard standard which is a much higher standard and more difficult to prove. The reckless disregard standard applies when defendant acts with a reckless disregard "for the safety of others" pursuant to the language of VTL §1103. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law §1103 (McKinney).
This exception only applies when the driver of a hazard vehicle is "actually engaged" in "hazardous operations" on or adjacent to a highway.
VTL §1103 dictates when hazard vehicles are traveling to and from hazardous operations the vehicle operator is not protected under the §1103 exemption. The drivers of the hazard vehicles fall under the standard of ordinary negligence rather than the heightened reckless disregard standard when traveling to or from operations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGet Your Popcorn Ready: Sanctions Regulations Involving Artwork and Media Content in a Post-'Chevron' World
11 minute readHow Businesses Can Protect Themselves Given the Influx Nature of Non-Competes
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
- 2Steve Bannon 'We Build The Wall' Fraud Trial Pushed to February 2025
- 3'Nuclear Option'?: Eli Lilly Taps Big Law Firms in Federal Drug Pricing Dispute
- 4Questions About Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act Remain Unanswered
- 5Santa Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250