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
THE TOWN ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE TERM “SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS” SUCH THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS WERE PROHIBITED BECAUSE TRANSIENT TENANTS DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF “FAMILY” (FOURTH DEPT).
Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Property Owner in Lead-Paint-Injury Case
PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON LIGHTS AND NOISE FROM A STADIUM PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Complaint Did Not State Causes of Action for Replevin or Conversion Because the Specific Funds Involved Were Not Sufficiently Identified/Fraud Cause of Action Stated—Inference of Fraud Sufficiently Raised from Circumstances Alleged
Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Testify Before the Grand Jury
Actus Reus for Burglary and Murder Not the Same—Consecutive Sentences Valid
Police Officer Involved In Accident Acted Appropriately In an Emergency Operation—Defendants Not Liable As a Matter of Law
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A PRIOR STIPULATED ORDER OF CUSTODY AND VISITATION GRANTING PRIMARY CUSTODY TO GRANDMOTHER, THE NONPARENT (GRANDMOTHER), NOT THE FATHER, HAS THE BURDEN TO SHOW EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE DENIAL OF FATHER’S SUPERIOR RIGHT TO CUSTODY BEFORE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN CAN BE CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY (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...