State liable for snowplow crash

A New York State Court of Claims judge has found the state 100% liable for damages suffered when a snowplow truck backed into a car in Dutchess County.

A trial on liability only was held via teleconference before Judge Walter Rivera on Sept. 14 and 15 and Oct. 4, 2021. Rivera recently released his decision.

“The Court finds defendant 100% liable … A trial on damages will be scheduled as soon as practicable,” Rivera wrote in the recently released decision.

The plaintiff, Lorenc Vahidi filed a claim for negligence and reckless disregard after a snowplow truck backed into his car on an exit ramp off the Taconic State Parkway in the town of LaGrange, on Feb. 12, 2017.

After Vahidi turned off the Parkway he stopped because the plow truck was blocking the one-lane road.

“The plow truck was moving back and forth putting snow on the side,” according to the decision.

Another passenger car stopped behind Vahidi. After waiting about five minutes, the plow truck started to back up and Vahidi honked his car horn.

“The plow truck kept moving and hit the front driver’s side of claimant’s car, then pushed it to the right and down the shoulder,” according to the decision.

Vahidi got out of his car and walked to the plow truck where he discovered the driver was wearing earbuds and listening to music.

The plow driver’s supervisor testified that plow truck drivers are “supposed to be able to hear and be aware of their surroundings.”

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) policy for backing up a plow truck is that drivers are supposed to exit the vehicle and check the rear to see if it’s safe, unless there are extreme weather conditions.

The driver claimed that he shifted the truck into reverse, but the truck did not move. And he claimed he was not wearing anything in his ears.

The plow driver claimed the diagram he drew on two accident reports was not accurate, that he did not draw the accident the way it had occurred, according to the decision.

The diagram shows the two vehicles in the wrong location, he claimed. The driver claimed that he did not draw the diagram where the hash marks are because it would have been confusing and “just look like a mess,” according to the decision.

He also denied the truck was moving in reverse when the collision happened.

“Claimant proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (the plow driver) backed up his plow truck … and collided with claimant’s car,” Rivera wrote.

Rivera accepted Vahidi’s testimony that he waited behind the plow truck on the exit ramp for about five minutes while it cleared snow, that another car was waiting behind him, and that he sounded his car horn when the plow truck started moving in reverse, but the plow truck kept reversing and collided with him.

Vahidi’s testimony that the plow truck was backing up when it hit his car was consistent with the police report and was corroborated by the supervisor’s report.

The plow driver’s “actions constitute more than a momentary lapse in judgment,” Rivera wrote.

He acted “in reckless disregard for the safety of others, and his reckless disregard was the proximate cause of the accident resulting in claimant’s alleged damages.”

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035