You are here: / / DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE...
,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; NO FOUNDATION FOR THE SUBMITTED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THERE IS CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FOIL Request Should Not Have Been Denied—Questions of Fact About Ability to Retrieve Documents
THE PEOPLE USED DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE AGAINST HIM IN THEIR DIRECT CASE; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RETAILER ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO A BANK STEMMING FROM THE HACKING OF MASTERCARD CREDIT CARD INFORMATION FROM THE RETAILER’S ACCOUNTS UNDER EQUITABLE SUBROGATION, MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORIES, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
The Treatment of Pre-Answer Motions to Dismiss an Action for a Declaratory Judgment Explained
MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (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

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE... DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE...