Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
When large commercial vehicles shed parts while in motion, nearby motorists can suffer serious injuries. These incidents often raise questions about vehicle maintenance, driver oversight, and liability. However, when the underlying facts are disputed, courts are often reluctant to decide the case before full discovery and trial. A recent New York decision highlights the difficulty of resolving negligence claims on a motion for summary judgment where critical factual disputes remain unresolved. If you were injured in a collision with a commercial vehicle, a Syracuse personal injury attorney can assess whether you may be entitled to compensation.
Case Setting
It is reported that the plaintiff was driving along North Conduit Avenue in New York when she allegedly felt a loud impact on the driver’s side of her vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that a piece of tire tread from a nearby commercial truck detached while the truck was moving and struck her car, causing her to suffer serious injuries. The truck was reportedly owned by the defendant company and operated by a driver who was later identified.
It is alleged that the plaintiff observed the truck stopped on the roadway, visibly missing its right front tire. She also saw the detached tire tread roll onto the nearby grassy median. The plaintiff took photographs of the scene and later sought medical treatment for her injuries. She brought a lawsuit against the truck owner and driver, asserting that the tire detachment was caused by negligent vehicle maintenance. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, arguing that the facts warranted application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se under the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law.
It is reported that the defendants disputed the plaintiff’s version of events, arguing that the tire tread did not hit the plaintiff’s car and instead came off after the truck struck a pothole. The driver of the truck claimed that he remained at the scene for approximately two hours and did not observe any damaged vehicles nearby. The defendants argued that the case involved unresolved questions of fact and that any tire failure could have resulted from road conditions rather than negligence.
Summary Judgment in Truck Accident Cases
The trial court began by explaining that summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party demonstrates the absence of any material issues of fact and shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court noted that summary judgment is a “drastic remedy” and should be denied if there is any doubt regarding the existence of triable issues.
The plaintiff’s motion relied heavily on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which permits an inference of negligence based on circumstantial evidence when certain conditions are met. To apply the doctrine, the plaintiff must show that the event was of a type that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, that the instrumentality was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and that the plaintiff did not contribute to the occurrence. The plaintiff asserted that the tire detachment could only have happened through negligence and that the truck was entirely under the defendants’ control.
The court concluded that the plaintiff’s reliance on res ipsa loquitur was premature. It emphasized that the doctrine is rarely sufficient to justify summary judgment, especially before discovery is complete. In this case, the parties disputed whether the detached tire tread even struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Because of that factual disagreement, the court determined that the inference of negligence was not “inescapable,” and the matter should proceed to trial.
The plaintiff also argued that the defendants violated New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(35), which requires vehicles to be equipped with tires in safe operating condition. However, the court found this argument similarly premature, as there was no conclusive proof that the tire violated applicable standards or that such a violation caused the incident. The plaintiff also sought to strike the defendants’ comparative negligence defenses, including one based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to wear a seatbelt. The court declined to strike these defenses at this stage, noting that factual development was needed regarding the circumstances of the accident.
Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, allowing the case to proceed toward discovery and trial.
Consult a Knowledgeable Syracuse Personal Injury Attorney
Claims involving commercial truck accidents and vehicular equipment failures often involve complex questions of fact and law. Even where serious injuries occur, liability must be clearly established to prevail in court. If you or a loved one has been injured due to a truck accident or equipment malfunction, the experienced Syracuse personal injury attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you evaluate your options. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to schedule a free consultation.