You are here: / / AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH...
, ,

AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED FOR THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACOTRS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant auto repair shop (Auto Excellence) did not owe a duty to plaintiff who was injured driving a borrowed car. Plaintiff, who alleged the car was negligently repaired (causing injury), did not have a contractual relationship with the repair shop and did not allege any Espinal factors which could give rise to tort liability based on a contract. Because no Espinal factors were alleged there was no need for defendant to negate those factors in its motion papers:

​

A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … , the Court of Appeals recognized that exceptions to this rule apply (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced another party’s duty, in Espinal, to maintain the premises safely.

Here, Auto Excellence made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering proof that the plaintiff was not a party to the repair contract and, thus, Auto Excellence owed her no duty of care … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, since the pleadings did not allege facts which would establish the applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, Auto Excellence was not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Koslosky v Malmut, 2017 NY Slip Op 02977, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED BY THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACTORS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY, (AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED BY THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACTORS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ESPINAL FACTORS, (AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED BY THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACTORS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

You might also like
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, OFFICE SOUGHT NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER-REPORTER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL ACTION DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF SOME OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.
Corporation Dissolved for Failure to Pay Franchise Taxes Can Be Sued On Its Pre-Dissolution Obligations
FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SENDER’S 60-DAY PERIOD TO MOVE TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER WAS 40 MINUTES LATE FOR A HEARING, FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROVED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS INSPECTED (AT MOST) AN HOUR AND TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE FALL; THAT PROOF WAS SUFFICIENT TO AWARD DEFENDANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS,... DEFENDANT ABUTTING LESSEE DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL...