## Facts

- Ventricelli rented an automobile from Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc.
- The vehicle’s trunk lid was defective and would not stay closed.
- Kinney knew of the defect and had attempted, unsuccessfully, to repair it.
- While the car was parked at the curb in New York City, Ventricelli and a passenger stood behind the vehicle trying to slam the trunk shut.
- A separate vehicle, driven by Maldonado, had been parked several car lengths behind Ventricelli’s vehicle and suddenly lurched forward.
- Maldonado’s car struck Ventricelli at the rear of the rented vehicle, causing personal injuries.
- Ventricelli sued Kinney in negligence, alleging the defective trunk condition caused his injuries.
- A jury returned a verdict for Ventricelli, awarding approximately $550,000.
- The Appellate Division dismissed the action against Kinney (leaving recovery, if any, against the other driver), and Ventricelli appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Kinney’s negligence in renting a car with a defective trunk lid was a proximate cause of Ventricelli’s injuries.
2. Whether Maldonado’s sudden forward movement constituted a superseding intervening act cutting off Kinney’s liability.
3. Whether proximate cause in these circumstances should have been left to the jury rather than decided as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the negligence claim against Kinney.
- The court held that Kinney’s conduct, even if negligent, was not a proximate cause of the injury.
- The court treated Maldonado’s sudden lurch forward as an extraordinary intervening act that broke the causal chain.
- A dissent would have permitted the jury’s proximate-cause finding to stand, emphasizing that proximate cause is usually for the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires more than cause-in-fact; the defendant’s conduct must be a legal (proximate) cause of the injury.
- Proximate cause limits liability to harms that are reasonably foreseeable in a general sense and within the scope of the risk created by the defendant’s negligence.
- An independent intervening act may be a superseding cause that cuts off liability when it is extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
- Courts may decide proximate cause as a matter of law when the connection between the alleged negligence and the harm is too remote, even if the negligence helped place the plaintiff at the location of injury.
- Dissenting view: where evidence permits differing conclusions on foreseeability and causal sequence, proximate cause should generally be resolved by the jury.

## Conclusion

The court limited negligence liability by holding that a rental company’s provision of a car with a defective trunk lid did not make it legally responsible for injuries caused by an unexpected third-party vehicle lurching into the plaintiff while he attempted to close the trunk, because the collision fell outside the foreseeable scope of risk and operated as a superseding intervening cause.


Ventricelli v. Kinney Sys. Rent A Car, Inc., 46 N.Y.2d 770, 386 N.E.2d 263 (1978)