Opinion
December 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Walter J. Relihan, Jr., J.).
Thaler Thaler, Ithaca ( Richard T. John of counsel), for appellant.
Williamson, Clune Stevens, Ithaca ( John H. Hanrahan, III, of counsel), for respondent.
On August 15, 1990, plaintiff was driving a dump truck owned by his employer, Norman Tidd, when the trucks left front tire blew out causing plaintiff to lose control of the vehicle. The truck rolled over several times ejecting plaintiff and his passenger. As a result of the accident, plaintiff was rendered a paraplegic. He commenced this action against defendant, owner of the automotive repair shop that issued a safety inspection certificate for the vehicle on March 12, 1990. Defendant, in turn, commenced a third-party action against Tidd's estate and plaintiff. At issue on appeal is Supreme Courts order denying defendants motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( 175 Misc.2d 151).
Defendant concedes for the purpose of summary judgment that he permitted Tidd's truck to pass inspection with the defective tire that caused the subject accident. He nevertheless contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on the alternative grounds that his only duty of care in this case — to notify Tidd of the defective tire — did not extend to plaintiff and, in any event, his alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident because intervening events — plaintiffs knowledge of the tires defective condition — broke the causal chain between such negligence and the accident.
As a threshold matter, we note our disagreement with defendants legal assumption that his only duty as a certified inspector in this case was to notify Tidd of the necessity to repair the truck and that such duty did not extend to third parties, including plaintiff. In undertaking the inspection of Tidd's truck as a licensed inspection station operator, defendant was obligated to, inter alia, conduct "a complete inspection" of the vehicle in conformity with all applicable rules and regulations (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 Veh. Traf. [d]; see, 15 NYCRR 79.20 [c] [6]), issue a certificate only if all prescribed mechanisms and equipment were "in proper and safe condition" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 304 Veh. Traf. [a]; see also, 15 NYCRR 79.20 [a]; 79.21), notify Tidd of any necessary repairs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 304 Veh. Traf. [b]; 15 NYCRR 79.5 [b]) and issue an "inspection rejection notice * * * if the condition of any item required to be inspected [was] found defective" ( 15 NYCRR 79.20 [a]; see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 Veh. Traf. [d]).
By conceding that he permitted Tidd's truck to pass inspection with a defective tire, defendant concomitantly concedes that he violated each of these statutory and regulatory provisions.
Notably, inadequate tread and/or bumps, bulges and knots on a tire are grounds upon which to issue an inspection rejection notice ( see, 15 NYCRR 79.21 [c] [1], [3])) Indeed, the failure to conduct inspections in conformity with statutory and regulatory requirements subjects inspection station operators to license suspension, revocation and nonrenewal ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 303 Veh. Traf. [e] [1], [5]). Moreover, we believe that an inspectors duties under the Vehicle and Traffic Law do extend to third parties as it is reasonably foreseeable that someone, other than its owner, may be injured in an accident because of a defect in a motor vehicle. A plain reading of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 309 Veh. Traf. (1) and (2) supports the conclusion that the Legislature enacted Vehicle and Traffic Law articles 5 and 5-A to protect not only owners of defective motor vehicles, but third parties who could be injured thereby.
Upon being notified of the need for repairs to a vehicle, an owner has 30 days within which to make such repairs (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 304 Veh. Traf. [b]; 15 NYCRR 79.5 [b]). If these repairs are not made, the owner must take the vehicle off the road as it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on State public highways without a valid certificate of inspection ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 Veh. Traf. [b]; 15 NYCRR 79.5 [a]; see, e.g., People v. Congregation Khal Chaisidei Skwere, 232 A.D.2d 919, 920, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 984).
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 309 Veh. Traf. (1) provides that "[t]he legislature hereby finds and declares that the safety of the motoring public depends on a modern system of periodic motor vehicle inspection" (emphasis supplied). Moreover, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 309 Veh. Traf. (2) provides that this State "recognize[s] the need for inspection of motor vehicles to assure its citizens that their safety would be protected by removing from its highways those cars whose mechanical condition did not meet rigid standards of safety" (emphasis supplied).
Similarly unavailing is defendants claim that intervening events, particularly plaintiffs knowledge of the tires defective condition on the day of the accident, break the causal chain between any negligence on his part and the accident. First, this argument is based on a factual premise, i.e., plaintiffs knowledge of the tires condition, that cannot be conclusively established on this record. Plaintiff testified at his examination before trial that he was not responsible for the maintenance on the truck and that, with the exception of a transmission problem, he never observed any mechanical problems with it. He also testified that, although he "vaguely" recalled hearing about problems with the trucks tires, he assumed that they were taken care of prior to the accident.
Additionally, while a negligent defendant may be relieved of liability if the conduct of another has intervened to "break the chain of causal connection" between that defendants breach of duty and the ensuing injury ( Mesick v. State of New York, 118 A.D.2d 214, 218, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 611), the conduct must be so extraordinary or unforeseeable that it is unreasonable to hold the defendant responsible for the resulting damages ( see, Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315). Considering the questions of fact that exist as to plaintiffs knowledge of the tires defective condition, summary judgment on this issue is precluded. In sum, we are unable to conclude as a matter of law that "only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts" ( id., at 315) concerning the question of legal cause. Rather, the questions of whether defendants conduct was a substantial cause of plaintiffs accident and whether intervening events broke the connection between defendants negligence and the accident should be left where they generally belong — in the hands of a jury ( see, e.g., Ramundo v. Town of Guilderland, 142 A.D.2d 50, 53; Miller v. Higgins, 57 A.D.2d 1010, 1011).
Defendants remaining contentions have been reviewed and none warrants reversal of Supreme Courts order.
MIKOLL, J. P, MERCURE, CREW III and PETERS, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.