Legal Opinion
Ortola v. Bouvier
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 5, 1985PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Before a defendant may be held liable for negligence, it must be demonstrated that defendant owes a duty to plaintiff. “In the absence of a duty, there is no breach and without a breach there is no liability” (Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781, 782). The question of the existence of a duty in any particular set of circumstances is entirely one of law to be determined by the courts (Donohoe v Copiague Union Free School Dist., 64 AD2d 29, 33, affd 47 NY2d 440). Here, plaintiff was afforded a safe place to alight from the bus and, in fact, did leave the bus and proceed safely to the curb of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pulka v. EdelmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School DistrictNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Brooks v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
3Cited by11 opinions
- Blye v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Diedrick v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Mooney v. Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Eisenberg v. Village of MamaroneckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Sulem v. B.T.R. East Greenbush, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.