You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, A PERMISSIVE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, WAS INJURED...
,

PLAINTIFF, A PERMISSIVE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, WAS INJURED WHEN HE OPENED THE WATER RESERVOIR FOR THE ENGINE AND IT “EXPLODED,” APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE ENGINE OVERHEATED DUE TO THE POSITION OF THE SNOW PLOW AND THE CONSEQUENT BLOCKING OF AIR FLOW TO THE ENGINE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS FORESEEABLE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. Plaintiff was driving defendant’s truck when everything on the dashboard turned red and plaintiff pulled over to check out the problem. When plaintiff opened the water reservoir cap the reservoir “exploded” injuring him. Plaintiff was told by the police officer who stopped to help that the position of the snow plow on the front of the truck was blocking air flow to the engine (apparently causing the engine to overheat). The Fourth Department determined there were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff, a permissive user of defendant’s truck, a duty of care:

… [T]here are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the truck’s mechanical issues … . * * *

… [D]efendant failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s conduct, in investigating the cause of the malfunction and checking the water level in the reservoir, was of an unreasonable character, was done in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow, or was done with conscious indifference to the outcome. * * *

The owner of a vehicle can be liable to permissive guests, users, or occupants if the owner knew or should have known of defects in the vehicle … . Bialecki v HBO Bldrs. W., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05907, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff, a permissive driver of defendant’s truck, was injured when he checked the engine water reservoir and it “exploded.” Apparently the engine overheated because the snow plow blocked air flow to the engine. There were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).
County Properly Passed Legislation Phasing Out Tax Exemption
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Rebuttal Witness Properly Called by the People to Show Possible Bias of Defense Witness
THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION IN NEW YORK; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WAS MURDERED BY MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND: THE SUIT ALLEGING THE COUNTY DID NOT ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE PRIOR REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT)
Commercial Property Overvalued—Evidentiary Criteria Explained In Some Depth
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LACK OF PREPARATION AND FAILURE TO LIMIT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND, THE INSURED, WAS DRIVING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS SERIOUSLY... THE TOWN ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE TERM “SINGLE FAMILY...