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
RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE HOW THE TRIAL COURT HANDLED NOTES FROM THE JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; CHALLENGE TO THE PROPRIETY OF HOLDING A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING IS MOOT AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING THE HANDGUN WAS IN RESPONSE TO POLICE ILLEGALITY, THE HANDGUN WAS NOT ABANDONED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Stop and Investigative Detention of Defendant Was Proper Under DeBour Analysis/Defendant’s Absence from Initial Sandoval Conference Cured by His Presence at a Subsequent Sandoval Hearing/Defendant’s Sentence Reduced Based In Part on a Much Lower Sentence Attached to a Plea Offer
DEFENDANT TOLD THE POLICE HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK, HIS STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BUT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR POSSESSION OF THE KNIFE AND MURDER BY STABBING FOUND PROPER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS RELATING TO THE CODEFENDANT’S POSSESSION AND FIRING OF A WEAPON DURING A ROBBERY AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT WERE BASED UPON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED UPON THE CODEFENDANT’S GETTING INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WITH THE WEAPON WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED QUICKLY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC IS NOT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF A REAR-END COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Allegations of Injuries in the Bill of Particulars Were Not So Broad as to Constitute a Waiver of the Physician-Patient Privilege for Plaintiff’s Entire Medical History
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (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...