Opinion
May 21, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
Plaintiff's foot was crushed in the narrow foot-well of the truck in which he was driving when the truck collided with the pole. At the trial of this products liability action against the manufacturers of the vehicle, and third-party actions, the IAS Court properly declined to charge the jury on the issue of crashworthiness, also known as the second collision doctrine (see, e.g., Garcia v Rivera, 160 A.D.2d 274, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 801). The collision between the truck and the telephone pole cannot be regarded as a separate collision from that between the interior of the truck and Mr. Wecht's foot. Even if the "second collision" doctrine did apply, the evidence shows that the defect in the foot-well enhanced Mr. Wecht's injuries by preventing him from removing his foot in time.
The evidence supports the jury's conclusion that the truck was unsafe. (See, Cover v Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261.) The conflict in the testimony of the various experts was a matter for the jury to resolve (Laniado v New York Hosp., 168 A.D.2d 341).
The IAS Court should have allowed defendants to inquire into plaintiff's complaint to Imperial about the truck, since the testimony was sought, not for the truth of the statement, but rather to show Mr. Wecht's knowledge on a certain subject (Richardson, Evidence § 205 [Prince 10th ed]). Nevertheless, there was competent evidence elsewhere in the record that only general complaints were made to Imperial about the trucks, and none about the excessive narrowness of the footwell. Accordingly, the error was harmless.
The jury's award of damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]).
We have reviewed all of the remaining arguments of the various defendants, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.