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
FORECLOSURE COULD PROCEED DESPITE ERRONEOUS SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE.
Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had Appeared in the Case Prior to the Test
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT TO POLICE OFFICERS HOURS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ARBITRATION AWARD BY A RABBINICAL COURT IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION LAW DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY, UNCONSCIONABILITY IS NOT A STATUTORY GROUND FOR VACATING AN ARBITRATION AWARD (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT WAS USING ONLY HIS FISTS FIGHTING THE MUCH SMALLER DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEADLY-FORCE-JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
VILLAGE BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION NOT SUBJECT TO AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN THOUGH A PRIOR APPEAL OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ABANDONED INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWN, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT IN BICYCLE LANE, NO SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE... DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE...