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
DIRECT APPEAL, AS OPPOSED TO AN ARTICLE 78, WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING; MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE AGAINST THE CONTEMPT ADJUDICATIONS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY FILED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION (SLIP AND FALL) ACCRUED, EVEN THOUGH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS SERVED WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD; A NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT IS A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE DEEMED TOO HARSH BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY, THE PLEA DEAL DEFENDANT WAS OFFERED BEFORE TRIAL, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE REVEALED BY THE TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT’S PHARMACY RECORDS IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE COLLISION CASE ARE NOT PROTECTED BY PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE AND MUST BE DISCLOSED SUBJECT TO TIME LIMITATIONS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IN DOG-BITE CASES APPLIES HERE WHERE THE DOG WAS HARBORED BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL THE ANIMAL SOCIETY COULD FIND SOMEONE TO ADOPT HIM; THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD WHICH APPLIES TO A DOG-BITE IN A VETERINARIAN’S WAITING ROOM (WHERE THE VETERINARIAN IS THE DEFENDANT) IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT LIVE IN THE TOWN WHERE THE CHALLENGED CANDIDATE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK THE RESPONDENT CANDIDATES’ ANSWER BASED UPON ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION AND DENIALS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON “BLACK ICE” DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THE ICE WAS NOT VISIBLE; THIS SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FOURTH 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

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...