Summary
In Scott v. Mead (132 AD2d 755), the Third Department provided that summary judgment is only warranted where the essential facts underlying the proximate cause are generally undisputed or where the wrongful conduct of the defendant was not a cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Summary of this case from Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co.Opinion
July 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cortland County (Bryant, J.).
Plaintiff was a passenger in a pickup truck operated by defendant John Mead (hereinafter defendant) when, due to excessive speed, defendant failed to negotiate a sharp turn on Bear Swamp Road in Cayuga County, slid off the road and came to rest upright in a snow-filled ditch. The occupants of the truck, plaintiff, defendant and another passenger, devoted several minutes attempting to gain traction on the rear wheels and free the vehicle from the ditch by jumping on the back of the truck. Failing in this effort, plaintiff returned to the driver's side of the truck to obtain a machete, or corn knife, to aid in extricating the vehicle and, as he exited the vehicle, he slipped and fell backwards, impaling his rectum on a stick or sapling protruding from the ground. Plaintiff's complaint, alleging the negligence of defendant as the proximate cause of his injuries, was dismissed upon defendants' motion for summary judgment, and this appeal ensued.
Where, as here, the essential facts are generally undisputed, the threshold question of proximate cause may properly be resolved by the court (see, Colban v. Petterson Lighterage Towing Corp., 19 N.Y.2d 794, 796; Rivera v. City of New York, 11 N.Y.2d 856, 857). Since the initial negligence of defendant is established, the question of defendant's responsibility for plaintiff's injuries turns upon whether the circumstances of his injuries were a foreseeable consequence of defendant's negligence.
In our view, the injuries sustained by plaintiff arose from a new and independent cause, an unforeseeable consequence of defendant's initial negligent act. Accordingly, defendants cannot be held liable (see, Ventricelli v. Kinney Sys. Rent A Car, 45 N.Y.2d 950, mod 46 N.Y.2d 770; Gralton v. Oliver, 277 App. Div. 449, affd 302 N.Y. 864) and summary judgment in favor of defendants was properly granted.
Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.