Majority
The plaintiffs’ decedent Rosann Hummel was killed when a
A parent owes a duty to protect third parties from clearly foreseeable harm arising from the child’s improvident use or operation of a dangerous instrument, where such use is found to be subject to the parent’s control (see Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d 647 , 653 [2001]; Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332 , 340 [1978]). The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the parents’ entrustment of the car to Stephen was not negligent (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324 [1986]). Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ submissions (see Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188 [2000]).
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Rios v. Smith 95 NY2d 647 at 653 p. 486
- Nolechek v. Gesuale 46 NY2d 332 at 340 p. 486
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 486