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
A TEACHER IS NOT A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF A STUDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW; THEREFORE A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE BY A TEACHER (FOURTH DEPT).
FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JURORS COULD NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THEY COULD PUT ASIDE THEIR RESERVATIONS AND BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NEW TRIAL AND BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER ISSUES NOT RULED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER TWO EVIDENTIARY ISSUES, ONE RAISED BY THE PEOPLE, AND ONE RAISED BY THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY IN HOLDING HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BACK PAY FOR THE PRE-HEARING PERIOD OF SUSPENSION (FOURTH DEPT).
The Destruction of Decedent’s Body in a Trash Compactor Gave Rise to a Cause of Action for Loss of Sepulcher
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE TOWN NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED A SEWER MAIN CAUSING SEWAGE TO BACKFLOW INTO PLAINTIFFS’ HOME; AN INTENTIONAL ENTRY IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS; THEREFORE THE TRESPASS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Suppressed Statement Improperly Allowed to Be Used to Impeach Defendant—Defendant Did Not Open the Door for Use of the Statement by Contradicting It On Direct
SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RULING THAT DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
Right of First Refusal Not Triggered by Partition Action

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

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