You are here: / / Cannot Sue Vehicle Owner as Vicariously Liable Under Vehicle and Traffic...
, ,

Cannot Sue Vehicle Owner as Vicariously Liable Under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 Where Driver is Immunized from Suit Under Workers’ Compensation Law 29 (6)

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that “a defendant may [not] pursue a third-party contribution claim under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law [section] 388 against the owner of a vehicle, where the vehicle driver's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is protected from suit by the exclusive remedy provision of New York Workers' Compensation Law [section] 29 (6)…”.  Here the driver, who was determined to be negligent (90%), was using her husband's car to drive a co-worker to a business meeting. The co-worker was injured and his exclusive remedy against the driver was under the Workers' Compensation Law.  The co-worker sued the driver of the other car, who was also determined to be negligent (10%).  The owner of that car (the driver's husband) then sued the owner of the car in which the co-worker was riding (the employee-driver's husband) under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388 for contribution and indemnification:

In sum, we hold that a defendant may not pursue a third-party contribution claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against a vehicle owner where the driver's negligence was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is insulated from a lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).  Isabella…Hallock… v Koubek, 45, CtApp 3-27-14

 

You might also like
ARGUING FOR LENIENCY IN SENTENCING DOES NOT PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SENTENCING WAS VINDICTIVE (CT APP).
APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY DECIDED APPEAL ON GROUNDS WHICH WERE NOT EXPLICITLY STATED BY THE TRIAL COURT BUT WHICH WERE IMPLICIT IN THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING.
FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP).
THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).
CPLR 3122 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATE COMPTROLLER TO ACQUIRE PATIENT AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE SUBMITTING SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH AUDITS OF PRIVATE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (CT APP).
Hearing Required to Determine If Criminal Investigation of Defense Counsel Affected the Conduct of the Defense (Re: CPL 440.10 Motion to Vacate the Conviction)
CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

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

Tenant Unable to Raise Question of Fact About Whether Dampness and Mold Caused... A Gallery, as Agent for an Artist, Was Obligated to Disclose All Material Facts...