On Friday, October 9, 2026, shortly after 2 p.m., a car drove through the intersection of Allerton and Holland Avenues in the Bronx, went through a group of people in the crosswalk, and then hit several other cars. Tragically, two women were killed, and others were hurt. Police said the driver "was unable to stop as he drove through the intersection" (ABC7), and investigators said the driver "appeared to have suffered a medical episode" (News 12 Bronx). No arrests had been made as of those reports.
We do not know what caused this crash, and nothing here is a comment on anyone involved in it. But the question it raises comes up in many injury cases: what happens to a claim when the driver says he or she could not help it?
Drivers Must Take Care
New York law requires every driver to "exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian, or domestic animal upon any roadway" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a)). Every motor vehicle must also have "adequate brakes and steering mechanism in good working order and sufficient to control such vehicle at all times when the same is in use" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(1)(a)).
Two explanations drivers may occasionally raise are a sudden medical emergency and brake failure. Both are recognized defenses in New York, and both have limits.
The "Sudden Medical Emergency" Defense
New York recognizes what is called the emergency doctrine. As the Court of Appeals has described it, a person faced with "a sudden and unexpected circumstance" that leaves "little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration" may not be negligent if the actions taken are "reasonable and prudent in the emergency context," "provided the actor has not created the emergency" (Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172 [2001]).
For a driver who passes out at the wheel, a New York appeals court has stated the rule this way: a vehicle operator "who experiences a sudden medical emergency will not be chargeable with negligence provided that the medical emergency was unforeseen" (Rivera v New York City Transit Authority, 54 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2008], describing an earlier decision). In that case, a jury found that a bus driver had a sudden, unanticipated medical emergency before the crash. The appeals court upheld the jury instruction on that defense, but it ordered a new trial for an unrelated reason.
The key word is "unforeseen." The defense may fail if the driver had warning signs, such as earlier episodes, symptoms before getting behind the wheel, or a doctor's advice not to drive. In Rivera, whether the driver's loss of consciousness was a sudden and unforeseen emergency was a question for the jury. Typically, a defendant's medical records do not come into a case, because they are protected by the doctor-patient privilege. But raising this defense may put the driver's own medical condition in issue. When a party asserts a condition "to excuse the conduct complained of by the plaintiff," the party may give up the privilege, and the related medical records may be discoverable by the other side (Peterson v Estate of Rozansky, 171 AD3d 805 [2d Dept 2019], quoting Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287 [1969]).
Brake Failure
A driver who blames the brakes has to show more than merely claiming that "the brakes failed." The First Department has held that "[a] defendant claiming brake failure must make a two-pronged showing": first, "that the accident was caused by an unanticipated problem with the vehicle's brakes"; and second, "that he exercised reasonable care to keep them in good working order" (Tselebis v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 72 AD3d 198, 200 [1st Dept 2010]). In that case, the truck driver had testified about problems with the truck's brakes before the accident, so the defense failed, and the court granted the injured motorcyclist summary judgment on liability.
The Second Department applied the same idea this summer. In Bandele v Rasier-NY, LLC, decided July 22, 2026, a car stopped at a red light was hit from behind. The other driver's "vague and conclusory assertion of brake failure" did not raise an issue of fact, and the defendants "failed to submit evidence showing that reasonable care had been exercised to keep the brakes in good working order prior to the accident" (2026 NY Slip Op 04483, *2 to *3). The court granted the injured driver summary judgment on liability against the other driver and the companies alleged to own the car.
In our experience, a claim that the brakes failed is easier to make than to prove, and it is rarely asserted. Maintenance records, inspection reports, and repair bills matter, and so does the car itself, so ask early that the vehicle be preserved before it is repaired, sold, or scrapped.
The Owner May Be Responsible Too
If the driver was using someone else's car with permission, New York law makes the owner responsible for injuries "resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle" "by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1)). Our post on drunk or impaired drivers explains more about claims against owners.
When Many People Are Hurt, the Insurance May Not Go Far
New York's minimum liability coverage is $25,000 for bodily injury to one person and $50,000 for bodily injury to two or more people in one accident, with higher minimums when someone is killed (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 311(4)(a)). When several people are hurt in the same crash, as can happen when a car goes into a crowded crosswalk, they may have to share the per-accident limit.
That is one reason to look at every policy that may apply, including your own. New York auto policies must, "at the option of the insured," also provide supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, which can help when the other driver did not carry enough (Insurance Law § 3420(f)(2)(A)). Our post on why New York drivers should buy more than the minimum explains more.
If You Were Hit While Walking
A pedestrian hit by a car files a No-Fault claim with the insurer of "the car that struck you," according to the Department of Financial Services (see Insurance Law § 5103(a)(1)). Written notice of the claim is due within 30 days of the accident (11 NYCRR 65-1.1).
What to Do
- Get medical care, and follow your doctor's advice.
- Write down what you saw, and the names and phone numbers of anyone who saw the crash.
- Look for cameras on nearby buildings, stores, and buses. Video can be recorded over in a matter of weeks; see our Decision Day entry on Fernandez v Port Authority.
- Give written notice of your No-Fault claim within 30 days of the accident. If a government vehicle was involved, a Notice of Claim generally must be served within 90 days (General Municipal Law § 50-e). In some circumstances, your time to act may be even shorter. We suggest speaking to a lawyer before you file, because anything you write or say in your claim may be used against you if there is a lawsuit.
- Talk to a lawyer early, so that the vehicle, its maintenance records, and video can be requested before they are lost.
If you were hurt by a driver who says he or she could not stop, contact The Eskesen Law Firm for a free consultation. Calls are answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.