This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and BRENNAN, HILL, RABIN and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 21, 1965, which dismissed the complaint as against defendant Bragoli upon the court's decision at the close of plaintiff's case upon a jury trial.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered.
At the close of plaintiff's case the court dismissed the complaint against the owner of a tractor truck who on a stormy night left it parked without lights in the middle of a road where the car in which
Page 1021plaintiff was a passenger collided with it from the rear. From the testimony of the driver of the car the court concluded that she was guilty of negligence and was solely responsible for the collision. That testimony was that she saw the truck when it was four car lengths ahead of her and that she saw it in enough time to turn. At other points, however, she indicated that she did not know just what happened, that she swerved to avoid the truck, 'and the next thing I knew I woke up. I was unconscious'. Assuming, Arguendo, that she was negligent, the accident could not have happened had not the truck owner allowed his unlighted vehicle to stand in the middle of the highway. Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury each tortfeasor is responsible for the [26 A.D.2d 555] entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it (Hancock v. Steber, 208 App.Div. 455, 204 N.Y.S. 258; Matthews v. State, 271 App.Div. 389, 66 N.Y.S.2d 199, affd. 296 N.Y. 946, 73 N.E.2d 261). Accordingly, the complaint against the truck owner must be reinstated and a new trial had.
May 21, 2013
26 AD2d 554, 270 NYS2d 1020
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
H2O Case Admin.
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.