 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beninati v. Yamaha Motor Co.6/17/1998
SUPREME COURT NASSAU COUNTY
In this personal injury action, the defendant manufacturer (Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.) and national distributor (Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A., Inc.) (collectively "Yamaha") move for summary judgment. The defendant dealership (Two Wheel Corp. d/b/a Yamaha-Suzuki of Mineola) cross-moves for similar relief. Plaintiffs oppose these motions and cross-move for summary judgment on the issue of liability. All such motions are opposed by defendant John Fiorentino. For the reasons that follow, summary judgment is granted as to the Yamaha defendants, and all other motions are denied.
This action arose from a collision between plaintiff Daniel Beninati and defendant Fiorentino on September 28, 1989. At that time, the 13 year old plaintiff was operating a Yamaha YFS200U Blaster Moto-4 all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") on a public, paved road in South Farmingdale, when he skidded though a stop sign into an intersection and was struck by a van operated by Fiorentino. Plaintiff's grandfather purchased the ATV for the plaintiff in November 1988 at the Two Wheels dealership. At the time of purchase, the infant plaintiff was 12 years old. The ATV in question had an engine displacement of 195 cubic centimeters.
Plaintiffs seek to hold the Yamaha defendants liable on the theory that they had a duty to use their "best efforts" to ensure that its authorized dealer, defendant Two Wheels, was complying with a consent decree to which Yamaha was a party; and that Yamaha breached that duty as evidenced by Two Wheel's sale of the subject ATV for plaintiff's use. (Galluzzi Affirmation in Opposition to Yamaha's Motion ["Galluzzi Opp."], 53). Plaintiff contends that the negligent acts and omissions of both defendants "placed a defective and dangerous instrumentality in the hands of a 12 year old child and were the substantial cause of the events which led to Daniel Beninati's injuries." (Id. 18).
As a general rule, the question of proximate cause is to be decided by the finder of fact once the Court has determined that plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence. (Derdiarian v Felix Contracting Corp., 51 NY2d 308). "To carry the burden of proving a prima facie case, the plaintiff must generally show that the defendant's negligence was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury." (Id.) Even when plaintiff succeeds in satisfying this burden, where the record supports a finding that a superseding cause or other factor intervened to break the nexus between defendant's negligence and plaintiff's injuries, summary judgment may be appropriate. (Id.; Howard v Poseidon Pools, 72 NY2d 972). "Those cases generally involve independent intervening acts which operate upon but do not flow from the original negligence." (Derdiarian, supra). Such is the present case.
All sides concede that at the time plaintiff's grandfather purchased the ATV, Yamaha was a party to a consent decree with the United States Department of Justice entered on April 28, 1988 which required it to use its "best efforts" to ensure that the terms of the decree would be carried out by its dealers. (Galluzzi Opp., Ex. C §B ). Among the terms of the decree were provisions setting forth age-of-user/size-of-ATV restrictions. The relevant provisions required the parties to "represent affirmatively" that ATVs with engine displacements of 70 cubic centimeters ("cc") to 90 cc be used only by those aged 12 and older, and that ATVs with engines greater than 90 cc be used only by those ages 16 and older. (Id. §G). The manufacturers were to use their "best efforts to reasonably assure" that ATVs were not purchased by or for the use of any person under the minimum ages set forth above.
Page 1 2 3 4 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|