X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION & ORDER   APPEAL by the defendant, in an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, from an order of the Supreme Court (Peter H. Mayer, J.), dated April 3, 2018, and entered in Suffolk County. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action. CHERYL CHAMBERS, JUSTICE The narrow legal issue presented on this appeal is whether the estate of a driver who suffered fatal injuries in a single-vehicle accident can recover damages against the vehicle’s owner pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §388(1), based on the theory that the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for any injuries caused by the driver’s negligence. Surprisingly, there is virtually no appellate case law on this issue (see Heins v. Vanbourgondien, 180 AD3d 1019, 1024; Perrin v. Chase Equip. Leasing, Inc., 9 AD3d 839, 840 [in dictum]). On August 29, 2014, the plaintiff’s decedent was killed when he lost control of the vehicle he was operating and struck a guardrail. The vehicle was owned by the defendant, who had granted the decedent permission to drive it. The plaintiff, both individually and as administrator of the decedent’s estate, commenced this action against the defendant, asserting various causes of action, including vicarious liability predicated on Vehicle and Traffic Law §388 (hereinafter the third cause of action). Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendant’s motion. The defendant appeals, and we reverse insofar as appealed from. Vehicle and Traffic Law §388(1) provides that “[e]very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner.” The predecessor of this provision — section 282-e of the Highway Law, which was enacted in 1924 (see Plath v. Justus, 28 NY2d 16, 20) — was intended to alleviate the harshness of the common law rule whereby the owner of a vehicle who merely permitted another to drive it could not be held liable for the driver’s negligence unless the driver was the owner’s employee or agent and was using the vehicle as part of the owner’s business (see Fluegel v. Coudert, 244 NY 393; Potts v. Pardee, 220 NY 431). Thus, the purpose of the new legislation was to ensure that persons injured by a negligent driver had access to “a financially responsible insured person against whom to recover for injuries” (Plath v. Justus, 28 NY2d at 20). In other words, while the driver’s own negligence remained grounded in common law, the new statute simply made owners vicariously liable for injuries caused by the driver’s negligence, so long as the driver was operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission (see id. at 20). The Legislature “did not otherwise change any of the rules of liability,” and “may not be presumed to make any innovation upon the common law further than is required by the mischief to be remedied” (Psota v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 246 NY 388, 393). In light of the history and purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law §388, we hold that the statute does not permit a negligent driver (or, in this case, the driver’s estate) to recover damages against the owner for injuries resulting from the driver’s own negligence (see Heins v. Vanbourgondien, 180 AD3d at 1124; Perrin v. Chase Equip. Leasing, Inc., 9 AD3d at 840; Maringo v. Senior, 102 Misc 2d 1011 [Sup Ct, Queens County]; Mordecai v. Hollis, 50 Misc 2d 248, 249 [Sup Ct, Queens County]). Accordingly, the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action is granted. DILLON, J.P., COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action is granted. Dated: November 12, 2020

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

Legalweek(year) 2021

February 02, 2021 - July 14, 2021
Virtual

Legalweek(year) will bring together thousands of legal professionals for a series of 5 innovative virtual legal events.


Register

New York Legal Awards 2021

October 21, 2021
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Register

Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2021

June 24, 2021
Virtual

The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania with their dedication to law.


Register

Attorney

Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, United States

Boutique suburban Philadelphia area based Personal Injury firm seeks a very motivated associate with a minimum of 5 years practice experienc...


Apply Now ›

Corporate Associate

New York, New York, United States

Duane Morris LLP has an opening for a mid-level corporate associate in its New York office. Join an exciting and growing M&A practice in...


Apply Now ›

Paralegal

New York, New York, United States

Lax & Neville LLP, a boutique law firm specializing in securities arbitration/litigation, financial services regulatory defense, financi...


Apply Now ›

MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL, LLP

06/15/2021
NYLJ Web

MARTIN, CLEARWATER & BELL LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW IN MEMORY OF FRANCIS PETER BENSEL


View Announcement ›

GILL & CHAMAS

06/14/2021
NJLJ Web

GILL & CHAMAS Congratulations to our partner and friend,DAVID H. LANDE, ESQ on his appointment to Judge in the Division of Workers Compensation.


View Announcement ›

MANDELBAUM SALSBURG PC

06/07/2021
NJLJ Web

Please to announce that....


View Announcement ›