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
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE SENTENCES EITHER BECAUSE THE CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL OR BECAUSE THE GUILTY PLEAS WERE INDUCED BY THE PROMISE OF ILLEGAL CONCURRENT SENTENCES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMBIGUITY IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT CLEARED UP BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE INSURER; THE INSURER SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCLAIMED COVERAGE FOR WATER DAMAGE CAUSED BY FROZEN PIPES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PLEA COLLOQUY IN WHICH DEFENDANT STATED HE CARED FOR THE THREE-YEAR-OLD VICTIM NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Injury While Trying to Pick Up a Fallen 3000 Pound Roll of Paper Was a Foreseeable Consequence of an Alleged Equipment Defect Which Caused the Roll to Fall
IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW A POLICE OFFICER TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN SECURITY CAMERA FOOTAGE (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
In Proceedings Seeking the Reduction of Tax Assessments, Court Should Not Have Ordered the Inspection of the Interior of the Homes—The Assessor Did Not Demonstrate Interior Inspections Were Necessary for the Defense and Did Not Demonstrate the Need for the Inspections Outweighed the Homeowners’ Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights

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...