## Facts

- Gertrude Hill was a passenger in an automobile involved in a rear-end collision on a stormy night.
- A tractor-truck owned by Bragoli was parked without lights in the middle of the road.
- The car in which Hill rode struck the unlighted truck from the rear.
- The car’s driver testified inconsistently about the events, including that she saw the truck when it was four car lengths ahead and in time to turn, but also that she swerved, did not know what happened, and then lost consciousness.
- Hill sued for personal injuries, naming the car-related defendants and Bragoli (the truck owner).
- At the close of Hill’s case, the trial court dismissed the complaint against Bragoli, concluding from the driver’s testimony that the car’s driver was solely responsible.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint against the truck owner could be dismissed as a matter of law on the theory that the car driver’s negligence was the sole cause of the collision.
2. Whether, when separate acts of negligence combine to produce a single injury, each tortfeasor may be held responsible for the entire result even if the injury might not have occurred from either act alone.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment dismissing the complaint against Bragoli.
- The court granted a new trial and reinstated the complaint against the truck owner.
- The court stated that no factual questions were decided.
- Assuming arguendo the car driver was negligent, the court held the accident could not have occurred absent the truck owner’s negligence in leaving an unlighted vehicle standing in the roadway.

## Legal Principles

- Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury, each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even if his act alone might not have caused it.
- A defendant is not entitled to dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s case when the evidence permits a finding that the defendant’s negligence was a contributing cause of the injury, even if another actor may also have been negligent.
- A court should not treat one actor’s negligence as the sole proximate cause as a matter of law when another actor’s negligent conduct could also be a cause-in-fact of the harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence of an unlighted truck left in the roadway required reinstatement of the claim against the truck owner because concurrent negligence may render each negligent actor liable for the entire injury, warranting a new trial rather than dismissal on “sole cause” grounds.


Hill v. Edmonds, 26 A.D.2d 554, 270 N.Y.S.2d 1020 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1966)