Hunt v. State of New York

Hunt, 2025 NY Slip Op 02251 (Appellate Division Third Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Third Department · April 17, 2025 · No. CV-24-0064

Summary

This Appellate Division, Third Department opinion addresses a negligence action brought by motorcycle passengers against the State of New York following a collision at an intersection with known visual obstructions. The trial court found the State 75% liable for failing to adequately remedy the dangerous sight-distance conditions, while assigning 25% liability to a third-party driver who failed to yield. On appeal, the State argued that the third party's negligence severed the chain of proximate cause. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the State's breach increased the likelihood of the accident and that the intervening negligence was a foreseeable consequence of the maintained dangerous condition.

Court
Appellate Division, Third Department
Writing for the Court
Garry, P.J.; Aarons, J.; Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.; McShan, J.; Mackey, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
April 17, 2025
Docket number
CV-24-0064
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims entered November 17, 2023.
Precedential value
published
Parties
State of New York v. Dale H. Hunt et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

proximate causenegligencecomparative faultduty of care

Practice areas

torts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the State's negligence in maintaining the intersection was a proximate cause of the accident
  2. Whether Ohlsten's negligence was a superseding intervening cause that broke the causal chain

Holdings

  1. The State's failure to study and adequately remedy the known dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the accident.
  2. Ohlsten's negligence was a foreseeable consequence of the State's negligence and did not break the causal nexus; therefore the State remains liable.

Key quotations

defendant's breach plainly "increased the likelihood of an accident" in the manner that ultimately occurred
Only where the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant's conduct, may it possibly break the causal nexus

Factual background

In August 2017 claimants on a trike motorcycle were struck at an intersection in the Town of Bellmont by an SUV driven by Lynn Ohlsten. The intersection had visual obstructions and the State had known for years of sight‑distance problems but had taken only minimal remedial steps. Ohlsten failed to yield the right‑of‑way and collided with the claimants.

Procedural history

The Court of Claims found the State 75% liable and the driver Ohlsten 25% liable for the 2017 intersection accident and entered a final judgment in favor of the claimants.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…