A car ran through a stop sign and struck my vehicle. The other driver told me and the police that the accident was not his fault. He blamed the mechanic that repaired his brakes. Do I have a case against driver and the mechanic?
A prior post addressed the issue of bringing a claim against the other driver. Without restating the entire post here, the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires drivers to have working brakes. Vehicle and Traffic Law section 375. Unless there was an unexpected failure, the driver would be responsible for the accident.
Proximate Cause is a Reasonably Foreseeable Outcome
The more interesting question for this post is the claim against the mechanic for failure to install and inspect the brakes. The issue boils down to a concept in the law called “proximate cause.” But in the context of this case, the courts will hold a person liable for a negligent action if the result of that negligent conduct is “reasonably foreseeable.” The idea is that person should not be liable to another who is affected by a negligent act affects someone remotely a distance and time removed from the negligent act.
It is reasonably foreseeable that the mouse trap will get set off if I trigger the mouse trap. However, if I set up 100 dominoes and then rely upon the last domino to knock over another trap, which sets off a mouse trap blocks away 20 minutes later, it is not reasonable foreseeable. Although it is possible that my domino might set off the mouse trap down the road, it is not reasonably foreseeable.
Contractual Responsibility
Another type of proximate cause is contractual. If there is a contract between two parties, the duties under that contract to each of the parties do not extend to third parties not in the contract.
In the case of brake failure, the duty the repair shop had was to its customer: the driver of the offending car. You were struck by a car that went through a stop sign. The mechanic owed no duty to you. The mechanic owed the duty to the driver of the car that struck you. Therefore, the mechanic would not be responsible for the accident. Stiver v Good & Fair Carting & Moving, Inc., 9 NY3d 253, 848 NYS2d 585 (2007).
By James Santner, Esq.
If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.