It is winter in western New York. Try as you might to avoid it, driving in the snow is pretty much inevitable. So you take precautions and drive at a reduced speed, giving yourself extra time to get to your destination. Approaching an intersection where you have the right of way, you proceed into the intersection and all seems well, until a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction suddenly makes a left turn in front of you and hits your car. Your car is badly damaged and you are seriously injured. The other driver claims that he didn’t see you. Do you have a negligence claim against the other driver for your injuries? If he or she is driving an ordinary car or truck, the answer is almost certainly “yes.” However, if you were hit by a plow, the answer may well be “no.”

That was the result in the case of Wilson v. State of New York,[1] which was decided by New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, in 2000. The claimant in that case, John Wilson, was driving westbound in the snow on Route 5 from Canajoharie to Utica, approaching the intersection of Route 5 and Route 167. Two State-owned snow plows were traveling in the opposite direction, plowing the eastbound passing lane of Route 5. As Mr. Wilson entered the intersection, one of the plows made a left turn onto Route 167 and struck Mr. Wilson’s car. The plow driver claimed that he had looked, but did not see Mr. Wilson’s car approaching. Seeking compensation for his injuries, Mr. Wilson brought a negligence claim against the State of New York.

Normally, all drivers – including drivers of state and municipally-owned vehicles – must comply with Title VII of New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law, the “Rules of the Road.” These are the rules which govern speed limits, traffic signs and signals, rights of way and turns, among other things. As a general rule, a driver’s violation of these rules is proof of negligence and is enough to establish the driver’s liability for any resulting injuries.

Section 1104 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law contains an exception to the Rules of the Road for “authorized emergency vehicles” such as police cars, fire trucks and ambulances. These vehicles are permitted to exceed the speed limit, go through red lights, and violate other traffic laws, but only when they are operating with flashing red lights and a horn or siren. If an emergency vehicle causes an accident while operating with lights and a siren, the driver cannot be held liable unless the injured victim can show that the driver acted with a “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” which is a much tougher standard to meet than simple negligence.

The Wilson case dealt with a similar exception, in Section 1103 (b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, for vehicles “actually engaged in work on a highway” and “hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation” on a highway. Section 1103 (b), like Section 1104, provides that the Rules of the Road do not apply to such vehicles and that operators of these vehicles can be held liable only for injuries caused by “reckless disregard for the safety of others.” The question in Wilson was whether this exception applied to vehicles doing any type of work on a highway or only to vehicles performing road work in designated work zones.

The claimants in Wilson argued that emergency vehicles like police cars, fire trucks and ambulances are allowed to violate traffic rules, even when doing so would increase the risk to the public, because disregarding the law is sometimes necessary to carry out their duties, while it is unclear that the increased risk to the public is justified for vehicles engaged in routine road work such as plowing. In addition, exempting all vehicles engaged in ordinary roadwork from complying with traffic laws would give them even greater protection than police and emergency vehicles, which are only exempted from obeying traffic rules when they are operating with their lights and siren on.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the reason for extending emergency privileges to non-emergency vehicles was not apparent. Quoting an earlier case involving the same statute, the Court asked:

Why, for example, should rural letter carriers or tow truck drivers be permitted, in the course of their work, to speed, drive on the wrong side of the road, ignore pedestrian rights and vehicular rights-of-way, and disregard traffic signs and signals--all without sirens or lights being employed--while the driver of an ambulance or civil defense vehicle must employ both lights and bells or sirens in order to be exempt from any rules of the road? [2]

However, the Court determined, despite these concerns, that the “Legislature has spoken clearly, giving vehicles engaged in road work the benefit of the same lesser standard of care as emergency vehicles. Any change in that standard, therefore, must come from the Legislature, not the courts.” [3]  The Court held that Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1103 (b) exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles that are actually engaged in work on a highway, regardless of the type of work they are doing. Because the plow that struck Mr. Wilson was engaged in work on a highway and Mr. Wilson could not prove that the plow driver was driving recklessly, his claim was dismissed, along with a companion case involving another driver who was injured when his car was struck by a street-sweeper. [4]

Struck by a snowplow – or any other vehicle performing work on a roadway? The bottom line is that proof of ordinary negligence will not be enough. Unless you can prove that the operator of the vehicle was driving recklessly, your claim will be dismissed.

BACK TO TOP