You are here: / / Owner of Rental Vehicle May Be Liable Based Upon Failure to Maintain the...
,

Owner of Rental Vehicle May Be Liable Based Upon Failure to Maintain the Vehicle

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Graves Amendment (which immunizes owners of rental vehicles from liability for the use of vehicles) did not apply where the complaint alleged a failure to maintain the vehicle. Because the defendant, PV Holding, did not demonstrate the alleged failure to maintain the vehicle did not result in the accident, the defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been denied:

Pursuant to the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), generally, the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if: (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (see 49 USC § 30106[a]…). The Graves Amendment does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to hold a vehicle owner liable for the alleged failure to maintain a rented vehicle … . The PV defendants failed to establish, prima facie, PV Holding’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although the PV defendants submitted evidence showing that PV Holding was engaged in the business of renting vehicles and that regular maintenance was performed on the subject vehicle, the PV defendants failed to submit any admissible evidence to demonstrate that the accident was not caused by the condition of the vehicle as a consequence of PV Holding’s allegedly negligent failure to maintain it … . Olmann v Neil, 2015 NY Slip Op 07483, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

You might also like
AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.
WIRES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO TRIP AND FALL WERE INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING PERFORMED AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED DEBRIS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
IF PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION TO SET ASIDE A DEED PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD TO PROVE THE DEED WAS FORGED; TO WIN A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT MUST UTTERLY REFUTE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE DEED WAS FORGED WHICH DEFENDANT FAILED TO DO HERE (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS NOT MET, PROOF OF MAILING INSUFFICIENT.
A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ONLY THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAS THAT POWER.
DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RETURN OF ENGAGEMENT RING AFTER THE ENGAGEMENT AND MARRIAGE WERE CALLED OFF (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Upward Departure from Level One to Three Not Warranted by the Evidence Property Owner Not Liable for Tracked-In Rain