Dominguez v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

In Dominguez v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (46 NY2d 528), the Court of Appeals ruled that a jury could, solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, conclude that a defendant had knowledge of a plaintiff's danger for purposes of application of the doctrine of last clear chance, under which a contributorily negligent party, who cannot extricate himself or herself from a perilous situation in time to avoid injury, may recover from a negligent party who becomes aware of the plaintiffs danger in time to avert the accident, but fails to use reasonable care to do so. The Court of Appeals, in Dominguez (46 NY2d, at 534), in making its ruling, expressly noted that the question of whether circumstantial evidence raises a triable issue of fact "will . . . depend on the unique factual circumstances of each accident." In Dominguez (46 NY2d at 534), the bus driver was identified and testified at the trial and, thus, the jury could assess his credibility as compared to that of the plaintiff therein.