Friedman v. State of New York Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Friedman v. State of New York | 493 N.E.2d 893 (1986)

Governments sometimes enjoy protection from negligence liability, but sometimes they don’t. The case of Friedman versus State of New York involved both such outcomes.

Dena Friedman, Connie Cataldo, and Ernest Muller had separate car accidents at different times, and each filed separate lawsuits against the State of New York.

In nineteen seventy-eight, Friedman was driving eastbound on the Roslyn Viaduct when she collided with a car and swerved into the westbound lanes, where another car hit her. In nineteen seventy-three, Cataldo was driving westbound on the middle stretch of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Another car traveling eastbound crossed into the westbound lanes and collided with her. Muller had a similar crossover accident on the same stretch of the same bridge in nineteen seventy-seven. Friedman, Cataldo, and Muller each sued the state, claiming it negligently failed to construct barriers between opposing traffic lanes.

At Friedman’s trial, the evidence established three facts. First, the state initially acknowledged a viaduct-barrier need in nineteen seventy-three. Second, a nineteen seventy-four project proposal estimated that the barrier, once started, could be completed in eighteen months. Third, the state could’ve installed temporary barriers in the time between planning and completing construction. The state argued, without presenting evidence, that it didn’t start the project because other highway projects had higher priority.

At Cataldo’s trial, the evidence established that the state first considered installing a barrier on the bridge in nineteen sixty-two. However, after studying the issue, the state only installed a barrier on the west end, where accidents were most prevalent. This decision was based on expert recommendations that barriers eliminate crossover accidents but tend to increase other types of accidents and reduce access for emergency vehicles. The state studied the issue again a decade later and found the same drawbacks.

Muller’s trial established the same facts as Cataldo’s trial but further established that the state commissioned a third study in nineteen seventy-three after Cataldo’s accident. This study recommended installing a barrier across the bridge’s entire span. In nineteen seventy-four, the state decided to install the full barrier, but first needed to make plans for the concurrent installment of a traffic-control system and for the barrier’s particular design. The state hired a firm that submitted a recommended barrier design in nineteen seventy-five. Despite issuing a press release that the project was a high priority and no delays were expected, the state took no further action until it adopted the firm’s design recommendation two years later. Similar multiyear delays occurred with the traffic-control-system plans.

Friedman’s trial court found that she and the state each shared half of the liability. The appellate division affirmed the judgment, and the state appealed. Cataldo’s and Muller’s trial courts each found the state liable, but the appellate division reversed and dismissed both claims. Cataldo and Muller each appealed. The court considered all three appeals together.

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries