You are here: / / U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS...

U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined, in a vehicle-accident case, defendant U-Haul did not demonstrate it was free from negligence in maintaining its rental truck. Therefore U-Haul's motion to dismiss was properly denied. The court explained the criteria for liability on the part of companies in the business of renting vehicles:

49 USC § 30106(a), also known as the Graves Amendment, provides that “the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if the owner (i) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (ii) engaged in no negligence or criminal wrongdoing” … . “The legislative history of the Graves Amendment indicates that it was intended to protect the vehicle rental and leasing industry against claims for vicarious liability where the leasing or rental company's only relation to the claim was that it was the technical owner of the [vehicle]'” … .

With respect to that branch of U-Haul's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), although U-Haul submitted documentary evidence establishing that it was engaged in the business of renting vehicles and that the subject vehicle had been rented … at the time of the accident, U-Haul failed to conclusively establish that it was not negligent in the maintenance of the vehicle, as alleged … . Anglero v Hanif, 2016 NY Slip Op 04682, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

NEGLIGENCE (U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED)/RENTAL VEHICLES (U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED)/GRAVES AMENDMENT (U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HORSEBACK RIDING WERE NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASED BY THE RIDING INSTRUCTOR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTTLY ALLEGED A BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTE; THE “IMPLIED COVENANT” CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED CONDUCT DIFFERENT FROM THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE NOT DUPLICATIVE; SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AWARDS (SECOND DEPT).
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THE MANDATE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE CONTRARY; THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IMPROPER; THE PETITION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
LINEUP IDENTIFICATION WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HER BICYCLE ON A SIDEWALK WHEN SHE COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AS DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO PULL OUT OF A PARKING LOT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him
Either Possession of the Note or an Assignment of the Note Confers Standing

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN HONORED, CRITERIA... POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.