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
AFTER CONVERTING THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION TO A COMPLAINT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER AND DEFENDANT OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL IN THIS STRIP MALL PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Evaluating County Bidding Process Explained
LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER’S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN HIRING THE DEFENDANT WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE SEVEN-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF, THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYMENT AND THE PLAINTIFF OR THE OFFENSE, WHICH OCCURRED NEAR PLAINTIFF’S HOME; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
STATUTORY AMENDMENTS REPEALING MANDATORY SURCHARGES AND CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE FEES FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS WERE REMEDIAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
FRENCH COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED ELEVATOR BRAKES FOR SALE TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 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.