From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. Village Imports, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 28, 1983
92 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Summary

In Ford v Village Imports (92 A.D.2d 717), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the dismissal of such a cause of action, without, however, addressing the question of guarantees of genuineness.

Summary of this case from Fusco v. General Motors

Opinion

February 28, 1983

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff sued the defendant, the operator of a garage, because of faulty repairs to her automobile. She seeks as damages, compensation for her "great embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience and mental agony" caused when, due to the faulty repairs to the motor, her automobile "ceased operating" while she was driving on State Route 490. Defendant moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint "to the extent of her claims that defendant is liable for the embarrassment, humiliation and mental agony she allegedly suffered". We affirm. Under certain circumstances an action will lie for negligent infliction of severe mental distress ( Battalla v. State of New York, 10 N.Y.2d 237); and at least one court has permitted recovery for severe mental distress caused by malfunctioning of an automobile negligently repaired. ( Snelling Lincoln-Mercury v Simon, 508 S.W.2d 923 [Tex].) Essential to this cause of action for negligent infliction of mental distress is proof of a traumatic event that caused the plaintiff to fear for her own safety ( Battalla v. State of New York, supra; see Howard v Lecher, 42 N.Y.2d 109; Tobin v. Grossman, 24 N.Y.2d 609; Shanahan v. Orenstein, 52 A.D.2d 164). In opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment plaintiff failed to submit evidence of any such traumatic event, and for that reason the motion was properly granted.


Summaries of

Ford v. Village Imports, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 28, 1983
92 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

In Ford v Village Imports (92 A.D.2d 717), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the dismissal of such a cause of action, without, however, addressing the question of guarantees of genuineness.

Summary of this case from Fusco v. General Motors
Case details for

Ford v. Village Imports, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:LUVENE FORD, Appellant, v. VILLAGE IMPORTS, LTD., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 28, 1983

Citations

92 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Zaccaro v. Jenik Motor Serv

The award to the extent that it was for mental distress was in error. Absent a traumatic event causing fear…

Slotkin v. Mercedes-Benz of North America

In opposition to the defendant's motion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alleged mechanical…