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
PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
City Code and Charter Not Unconstitutionally Applied Re: Searches Related to Certificates of Occupancy
EQUIVOCAL AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DRUG ABUSE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 15-POINT DRUG-ABUSE ASSESSMENT UNDER SORA (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION LAW OR PARTY RULE REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION, JUDICIAL INTERVENTION NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT POINTED QUESTIONS IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP AND A FOOT CHASE DEFENDANT WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY; NOTHING THE DEPUTY HAD SEEN AT THAT POINT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE DEFENDANT’S CAR; AFTER OPENING THE CAR DOOR AND SMELLING MARIJUANA THE DEPUTY CONDUCTED A WARRANTLESS SEARCH; THE DRUGS AND WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT)
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A BREAKWALL AND RETAINING WALLS ON LAKEFRONT PROPERTY WERE FENCES WHICH VIOLATED THE CODE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
In a Partition Action, Tenant in Common Not Liable to Other Tenants in Common for Use and Occupancy of the Property/Tenant in Common Entitled to Reimbursement from Other Tenants in Common for Taxes and Repairs

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 © 2026 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...