You are here: / / U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS...

U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined, in a vehicle-accident case, defendant U-Haul did not demonstrate it was free from negligence in maintaining its rental truck. Therefore U-Haul's motion to dismiss was properly denied. The court explained the criteria for liability on the part of companies in the business of renting vehicles:

49 USC § 30106(a), also known as the Graves Amendment, provides that “the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if the owner (i) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (ii) engaged in no negligence or criminal wrongdoing” … . “The legislative history of the Graves Amendment indicates that it was intended to protect the vehicle rental and leasing industry against claims for vicarious liability where the leasing or rental company's only relation to the claim was that it was the technical owner of the [vehicle]'” … .

With respect to that branch of U-Haul's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), although U-Haul submitted documentary evidence establishing that it was engaged in the business of renting vehicles and that the subject vehicle had been rented … at the time of the accident, U-Haul failed to conclusively establish that it was not negligent in the maintenance of the vehicle, as alleged … . Anglero v Hanif, 2016 NY Slip Op 04682, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

NEGLIGENCE (U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED)/RENTAL VEHICLES (U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED)/GRAVES AMENDMENT (U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER WHO COLLIDED WITH HER CAR WAS ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANKRUPTCY STAY DID NOT TERMINATE WHEN DEFENDANT BOUGHT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE; THE STAY TERMINATED LATER WHEN DEFENDANT RECEIVED A DISCHARGE FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN LAWN CHAIR SANK INTO A HOLE CONCEALED BY GRASS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDOWNER HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR THAT IT LACKED CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IN ADDITION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Double Hearsay in Presentence Report Did Not Render the Information Unreliable Re: a SORA Sex Offender Proceeding
Criteria for Granting Leave to Serve a Late Notice of Claim Explained
ABSENCE OF A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE IN AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER A PARTY IS A MEMBER OF A HOUSEHOLD FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION OVER A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE A FINDING RESPONDENT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND 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

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN HONORED, CRITERIA... POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.