You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK LED TO AN ACCIDENT...

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK LED TO AN ACCIDENT IN WHICH A VAN DRIVEN BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYEE STRUCK DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; A LAWSUIT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE AGAINST PLAINTIFF CULMINATED IN A $900,000 SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE RESULTING INCREASED INSURANCE PREMIUMS FORCED PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS; THE LOSS OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT A FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the damages suffered by plaintiff. Two wheels fell off defendant’s dump truck. Plaintiff’s (Able Medical’s) employee struck one of the wheels and then struck defendant’s employee, the truck driver. Defendant’s employee sued the plaintiff and the matter was settled for $900,000. Plaintiff alleged the increase in insurance premiums resulting from the accident and settlement forced plaintiff to go out of business:

… [P]laintiffs’ theory of causation is based on a lengthy chain of events spanning the course of two and a half years. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to maintain its truck, that rear wheels fell off of the truck causing a motor vehicle accident, that the accident resulted in a lawsuit, and that the settlement of the lawsuit ultimately resulted in an increase in insurance premiums for plaintiffs, which caused plaintiffs to close their business. On its motion, defendant established that those alleged economic injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of defendant’s alleged negligent maintenance of its truck and, thus, the connection between defendant’s activities and plaintiffs’ economic losses is too tenuous and remote to permit recovery … . Able Med. Transp., Inc. v Paragon Envtl. Constr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02687, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

You might also like
A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION BASED UPON EMPLOYEES’ ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; THE PROPER THEORY IS RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).
A WITNESS IS NOT UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY AT A TRIAL BASED UPON THE FEAR OF COMMITTING PERJURY DURING THAT TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INFORMED OF THE PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN BODY IN HIS PELVIS; THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S CUSTOM OR HABIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE OFFICER WHO CONVINCED DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO APPLY FOR A WARRANT BUT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DETAINED UNTIL THE WARRANT WAS PROCURED; BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, THE OFFICER’S STATEMENT WAS MISLEADING; DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AFTER THREATENING FAMILY MEMBERS AND KILLING A DOG; DEFENDANTS RELEASED PLAINTIFF THE SAME DAY AND PLAINTIFF KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS; PLAINTIFF ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS; THE RULE PROHIBITING A PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG DID NOT APPLY AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY EXCLUSION IN THE NAIL SALON’S INSURANCE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND EXCLUDES INJURY RESULTING FROM A “COSMETIC SERVICE;” PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE CONTRACTED AN INFECTION DURING A PEDICURE; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Affidavit Stating that Third Party Confessed to Murder Required a Hearing Pursuant to a Motion to Vacate the Judgment of Conviction Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence
Court Was Not Authorized to Deny a 440 Motion Without a Hearing Where People Submitted No Opposition to the Defendant’s Adequate Papers

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN UNGUARDED, UNILLUMINATED SEAWALL AT THE BACK OF... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS LAST CLEANED...