Summary of Hill v. Edmonds, S. Ct. N. York, 1966
Relevant Facts: Df, Edmonds, the driver of a delivery truck owned by Bagoli, parked the truck, in the street, with the lights out, on a stormy night. The Pl claimed to have seen the truck some four car lengths ahead of her, and either swerved or hit it directly. Pl could not remember which b/c she was rendered unconscious.
Legal Issue(s): Whether a complaint can be dismissed when separate acts of negligence combine to produce a single injury?
Court’s Holding: No each is responsible, and the jury determine to what extent.
Procedure: Trial Ct dismissed complaint at the close of jury trial. The complaint is reinstated and remanded for new trial.
Law or Rule(s): 1) Duty, 2) Breach of Duty 3) causation, and 4) damages. The causation element requires proof of both cause in fact and proximate cause.
Court Rationale: Even if the driver of the vehicle in motion, PL, were negligent, she would not be sole responsible for the accident. The driver, DF, of the truck allowed his unlighted vehicle to stand in the middle of the street and without which the accident would not have happened.
Plaintiff’s Argument: The truck owner negligently left the vehicle in the middle of the street without lights on a stormy night, which caused the accident.
Defendant’s Argument: The driver of the car failed to exercise caution on a stormy night and she caused the accident by her breach.