Hill v. Edmonds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · 1966 · Torts

26 A.D.2d 554 (1966)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligenceConcurrent negligencejoint and several responsibilityparked truckunlighted vehicleproximate causemultiple tortfeasors

Facts

On a stormy night, the owner of a tractor truck left it parked without lights in the middle of a road. The car in which plaintiff was a passenger struck the truck from the rear. The driver of the car testified at one point that she saw the truck four car lengths ahead and in enough time to turn, but elsewhere said she did not know exactly what happened, that she swerved to avoid the truck, and then lost consciousness. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the truck owner after concluding from the driver's testimony that the driver was negligent and solely responsible for the collision.

Issue

Whether the complaint against the truck owner was properly dismissed at the close of plaintiff's case on the theory that the car driver's negligence was the sole cause of the collision. More specifically, the question was whether the truck owner's act of leaving an unlighted truck in the middle of the highway could still be a basis of liability even if the driver of the car was also negligent.

Rule

Where separate acts of negligence combine directly to produce a single injury, each tort-feasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a foggy evening outside Albany, Owen Mercer left his disabled flatbed trailer stopped across part of a two-lane road without any lights or reflectors. Minutes later, Talia Grant drove too fast for conditions, noticed the trailer late, swerved, and struck it, seriously injuring her passenger, Nina Flores.

Nina sues Owen. Owen argues that Talia's speeding was the sole cause of Nina's injuries. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that where separate acts of negligence combine directly to produce a single injury, each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even if either act alone might not have caused it. Thus, even if Talia was negligent, Owen is not automatically absolved if leaving the unlit trailer in the roadway directly contributed to the crash.