You are here: / / Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s V...
,

Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s Vehicle Was Repaired—Therefore Dealership Was Not Vicariously Liable for Injury Caused by the Driver of the Loaned Car

In reversing the motion court and granting summary judgment to defendant car dealership, the Fourth Department (over a dissent) determined that defendant dealership was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and therefore could not be held vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388.  Defendant’s employee (the daughter of the owner) agreed to lend her personal car to one Leederman while Leederman’s vehicle was being fixed at the dealership.  All of defendant’s “loaner cars” were in use and the dealership’s owner asked his daughter to lend her car to Leederman.  Leederman, in turn, let defendant Trummer use the car.  Trummer was driving when the accident occurred.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, an owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligent use or operation of such vehicle by anyone operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission (see § 388 [1] …).The term “owner” is defined as “[a] person, other than a lien holder, having the property in or title to a vehicle . . . The term includes a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle . . . subject to a security interest in another person and also includes any lessee or bailee of a motor vehicle . . . having the exclusive use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period greater than thirty days” (§ 128; see § 388 [3]).

We agree with defendant that it established as a matter of law that it was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident at issue, and that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to ownership of that vehicle.  Monette v Trummer, et al, CA 12-01274, 79, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED EITHER TO THE VACATION OF HIS GUILTY PLEA OR TO A SENTENCE WHICH CONFORMED WITH THE SENTENCE PROMISE; DEFENDANT’S 440 MOTION WAS NOT BARRED BY PROVISIONS OF CPL 440.10 (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION, THE PARENTS WERE FIT AND THEIR TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN WEIGHT, INSTEAD FAMILY COURT IGNORED THE PARENTS’ TESTIMONY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PLED GUILTY AND ACCEPTED A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IN MONORE COUNTY BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO 14 – 24 YEARS FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE IN ONTARIO COUNTY; ON APPEAL THE ONTARIO COUNTY SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR YEARS; MONROE COUNTY GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE SUPPORT OBLIGATION CALCULATED PURSUANT TO THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) BASED UPON THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY MOTHER WHEN THE CHILDREN WERE WITH HER; THE EXPENSES DID NOT QUALIFY AS “EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES” (FOURTH DEPT).
A FIREFIGHTER INJURED ON THE JOB RETURNED TO THE JOB BUT COULD NOT WORK THE 10 TO 24 HOUR SHIFTS WHICH ARE THE “REGULAR DUTIES” OF A FIREFIGHTER; BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT OFFERED THE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT OF THE SHORTER SHIFTS OR LIGHT-DUTY WORK, SHE WAS ENITLTED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT OWE A SPECIAL DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WHO CALLED 911 DURING A SNOW STORM AFTER HIS CAR HAD BECOME STUCK AND WAS FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR THREE DAYS LATER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED FROM 12 TO FIVE YEARS BASED UPON THE PLEA OFFERS, THE LACK OF PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, AND THE VICTIMS’ OPPOSITION TO INCARCERATION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUDDLE ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Contract Between Employer and Contractor Did Not Create a Duty Owed to Employee/Instrument... Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of a Skydiving...