Salahuddin v. United States

1

SAFIYYAH SALAHUDDIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 16-CV-1866 (RPK) (PK)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RACHEL P. KOVNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Safiyyah Salahuddin brings an action against the United States of America (“the government”) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C § 2671 et seq., alleging that a government employee negligently caused a collision between a postal vehicle and her car. See Compl. (Dkt. #1). I held a one-day bench trial by videoconference on the issue of the government's liability. After the trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law as well as briefing on plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of defendant's expert witness.

After considering the evidence introduced at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the controlling law on the issues presented I set forth below findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. I resolve the outstanding evidentiary issue in defendant's favor and conclude that plaintiff has not met her burden of proof on each element of her negligence claim.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following section constitutes the Court's findings of fact pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). These findings of fact are drawn from witness testimony at trial and the parties' trial exhibits. To the extent that any finding of fact reflects a legal conclusion, it shall be deemed a conclusion of law to that extent, and vice versa.

In the early afternoon of May 13, 2014, plaintiff's Nissan Altima collided with a Postal Service Long Life Vehicle (“LLV”) operated by United States Postal Service mail carrier Hector Fontanez. See Trial Transcript 17:3-10, 40:15-18, 53:10-12, 88:1-10 (“Tr.”). The accident occurred in Staten Island at the corner of Lynhurst Avenue (“Lynhurst”) and Bay Street (“Bay”). Tr. 55:7-18, 56:3-6. Lynhurst, a one-way street, intersects with Bay, a two-way street, at a ninety-degree angle. Tr. 55:10-18.

Prior to the collision, plaintiff drove down the middle of Lynhurst and stopped in front of a stop sign. Tr. 55:15-16, 56:7-12 71:12-72:6. A bread truck parked on the left corner of Bay obstructed plaintiff's view of traffic on her left. Tr. 56:13-25, 74:8-75:5. Plaintiff saw the LLV parked on Bay to her right. Tr. 56:13-25. She testified that the LLV also obstructed her view. Tr. 56:13-20, 58:5-9, 75:18-21. A Jeep with a tire mounted on the back was parked about two feet in front of the LLV. Tr. 32:1-3.

Plaintiff pulled up far enough to check for traffic and stopped. Tr. 74:2-75:21. Once plaintiff thought that she could safely turn right onto Bay, plaintiff attempted to make the turn. Tr. 75:6-9. At that point, plaintiff's Altima and the LLV collided, damaging the Altima's front right headlight and bumper and scraping the LLV's left rear bumper. Tr. 29:16-20, 58:5-9; Def.'s Ex. 10; Def.'s Ex. 41. The LLV's front left mirror contacted the Jeep's spare tire, and the LLV stopped with its front right tire on a grassy sidewalk. Tr. 43:20-23, 49:4-15; Def.'s Ex. D-35; Def.'s Ex. D-43. Debris landed on Bay about four inches to the left of the LLV's rear left tire. Tr. 47:2-48:5; Def.'s Ex. D-41. After the accident, plaintiff parked her car on Lynhurst before photographs were taken of the scene. Tr. 84:1-15.

Plaintiff and Fontanez gave conflicting accounts at trial about where the LLV was initially parked and how the accident occurred. I find Fontanez's account to be more credible than plaintiff's.

Fontanez testified that on the day of the accident, he was driving the same mail route that he had covered for a decade. Tr. 19:7-11. As usual, he turned right from Lynhurst onto Bay and parked the LLV. Tr. 39:3-10. To park the LLV, he shifted the vehicle into park, put on the parking brake, turned the wheel to the right, shut off the truck, and took the keys. Tr. 40:17-21. On the day of the accident, he parked the LLV with its back tires four inches from the curb and aligned with a manhole cover located on the sidewalk. Tr. 20:14-21:3, 22:8, 43:17-21. When asked to compare the position of his LLV at the time of the crash with an image of a mail truck with its back end close to the Lynhurst intersection, Fontanez answered that his mail truck was “[a]bsolutely not” parked in the same spot. Tr. 20:13; see Pl.'s Ex. 2-2. Fontanez also testified that there were no signs indicating that his parking spot was illegal and that he did not see any white lines painted on the road to delineate a legal parking zone. Tr. 17:11-21, 24:21-25:3.

According to Fontanez, he had turned off his truck and was standing on the truck's ledge reaching over the driver's seat for the mail when plaintiff hit the LLV. Tr. 39:11-40:12. The impact felt to him like an “earthquake.” Tr. 29:18-20. Fontanez testified both that he jumped out of the truck at the moment of impact and that the impact's force knocked him out of the truck. Tr. 28:21-23, 29:21-30:13. Fontanez also testified that the impact pushed the LLV two feet into the Jeep and moved the LLV's front right wheel four to six inches over the curb. Tr. 32:20-33:4, 43:20-23, 50:25-51:3.

Two issues that plaintiff identifies in Fontanez's testimony do not discredit his account of the accident. Plaintiff argues that because Fontanez indicated both that he had just parked at the time of the accident and that he had gotten out of and back into the LLV before the accident, his testimony is inconsistent. In the context of the direct examination of Fontanez, that argument falls flat. Plaintiff's counsel asked Fontanez, “once the accident occurred, you immediately got out of your truck, correct?” Tr. 28:21-22. Fontanez replied, “[n]o, I was knocked out of my truck.” Tr. 28:23. Then, plaintiff's counsel asked, “once you exited the vehicle, what was the first thing you did?” Tr. 28:24-25. Fontanez asked in return, “[b]efore or after the accident?” Tr. 29:1. Given that Fontanez also testified that he had parked the LLV “maybe ten seconds” before the accident, plaintiff contends that this exchange proves that Fontanez's story is false, and that he was backing his truck up rather than parked when the vehicles collided. Tr. 39:13-15; Pl.'s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 23 (Dkt. #43) (“Pl.'s Proposed Findings”). But plaintiff's question about whether Fontanez “exited the vehicle” was confusing-if not a non-sequitur-as a follow-up to Fontanez's statement that he was “knocked out of” the LLV. Fontanez should not be faulted for attempting to clarify a vague question.

In addition, plaintiff argues that Fontanez's assertion that he jumped out of the truck was implausible since he did not anticipate the impact and compared its force to an earthquake. Pl.'s Proposed Findings ¶¶ 24-27. It seems entirely possible that a person could propel himself out of a vehicle that had just been struck. Of greater concern is Fontanez's inconsistent testimony that he was both knocked and jumped out of the truck. See Tr. 28:21-23, 29:21-30:13. That inconsistency might speak to Fontanez's limitations in recollecting how his body moved during the accident, or it might indicate mere ambiguity in his answers. However, even if that inconsistency raises doubts about whether Fontanez jumped or fell, it does not undercut his testimony about how the accident occurred.

Plaintiff's alternative account of the LLV's parking spot and the accident is not credible.

With respect to the LLV's initial location, Plaintiff testified at trial that before she turned onto Bay, the LLV was parked with “the back of the truck . . . protrud[ing] onto Lynhurst.” Tr. 62:9-10; 78:22-23. But on cross-examination, plaintiff was confronted with her deposition testimony that the LLV's back end was on Bay. Tr. 78:24-83:18. In light of plaintiff's prior statements, I do not credit her trial testimony about the location of the LLV.

Plaintiff's testimony about how the accident happened is incredible. According to plaintiff's version of events, “as [she] made the right, looking right, the [LLV] backed into [her] and hit [her].” Tr. 75:8-9; see Tr. 58:8-10. The impact occurred as she was “just starting to turn the wheel.” Tr. 77:5. Then, plaintiff's car came to a stop, the LLV pulled forward and hit the Jeep, and Fontanez jumped out of the LLV. Tr. 58:13-18; 77:21-25.

Plaintiff's narrative is not consistent with her deposition testimony or the evidence. While plaintiff testified at trial that the LLV “backed into” and “hit” her, on cross-examination, she admitted that she had testified at her deposition that the LLV was “probably barely moving” at the time of the collision. Tr. 75:8-9; Tr 84:22-86:2. Moreover, plaintiff variously testified that she did not know whether debris fell off her car, that there was no debris in the street, and that she did not see any debris. Tr. 91:9-92:11. Photographs of the Altima's front right bumper and headlight reveal missing pieces, and photographs of the scene show corresponding debris scattered by the back left tire of LLV. See Def.'s Ex. D-2; Def.'s Ex. D-5; Def.'s Ex. D-39, Def.'s Ex. D-40, Def.'s Ex. D-41, Def.'s Ex. D-42. Common sense dictates that if the LLV had backed into plaintiff and then driven forward, as plaintiff claims, the debris would have been found much farther behind the LLV. And even if plaintiff had “positioned her vehicle rightward” during the turn, it is difficult to conceive of how the LLV, if parked in the Lynhurst intersection as plaintiff claims, could have backed into her and only contacted the front right corner of her car. See Def.'s Ex. D-1; Def.'s Ex. D-2; Def.'s Ex. D-3; D-5; Def.'s Ex. D-10; Tr. 46:19-47:1, 91:24-92:2; Pl.'s Proposed...