Vehicle Owner's Liability for Acts of the Driver

Often times, the driver primarily responsible for an automobile accident is not the owner of the vehicle he or she was driving.

New York Vehicle & Traffic Law §388 provides that the owner of a vehicle is “liable and responsible” for death or injuries to person or property resulting from the negligent use or operation of the vehicle.

In essence, the statute imposes strict liability on vehicle owners provided two essential criteria are established: First, the vehicle must be used or operated in New York State; and second, the driver must be using or operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission.

The statute is important for plaintiffs who have been severely injured and looking for deep pockets from which to satisfy a potential judgment. Not only can a plaintiff potentially recover from the driver’s insurance carrier, but also that of the vehicle owner. To illustrate, if plaintiff suffered a severe spinal injury for which she would likely obtain a judgment in the hundreds of thousands or even millions against the driver, she might be limited in her ability to recover if the driver had a policy limit of only $75,000 and otherwise had no personal assets. By adding a second defendant, the realistic amount the plaintiff could recover could be significantly more.

There are a variety of interesting situations where VTL §388 could very dramatically “sweeten the pot” for a plaintiff, such as in cases where the vehicle was rented from a car rental agency, or a “loaner car” from an automobile dealership. Both car rental agencies and automobile dealerships usually have significantly greater policy limits.

Not surprisingly, however, issues often arise with respect to whether the owner granted the driver permission. Take for example, the situation where the owner of a vehicle is intoxicated and asks another to drive his vehicle home from a tavern. There may be a question of whether the owner had the capacity to grant permission to the driver while impaired.

Another question may result in the use of dealership plates when a dealer permits a purchaser to drive off the lot with a vehicle that is still technically registered to the dealer while it undertakes to process a financing application. There are specific laws that apply to dealers which, if violated, may estop the dealer from denying ownership.

Then there are those cases where somebody gave an individual permission to drive a vehicle, but attempted to revoke it. In those instances, to be safe, the vehicle owner’s revocation of permission should be unequivocal. If the owner tells the driver he or she needs to return the vehicle, that may not be enough. Instead, the safer course of action is to notify the driver that they no longer have permission to drive the vehicle and that you will come retrieve it yourself. If the driver fails to comply, the owner can take other steps to safeguard against there being any question of fact with respect to the revocation of permission such as reporting the vehicle stolen, and reporting the failure of the driver to return the vehicle to the Department of Motor Vehicles in writing. Repossession may be another option, so long as it can be done peaceably.

Every case is different and, for that reason, it is best to consult an attorney for advice before taking drastic action.

New York's Good Samaritan Law - A Good Deed Goes Unpunished

The other day, a client was telling me a story. While trying to describe somebody’s personality, he said this:

“She’s the type of person that will find fault in everything you do. If you push her off the tracks just seconds before she is about to be struck by a speeding locomotive, she’ll sue you for bruising her leg and soiling her clothes.”

And that reminded me of New York's Good Samaritan law, today's topic.

Common Law: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Generally speaking, there is no duty to come to the aid of somebody that has been in an accident and in need of emergency medical assistance. However, not long ago, if you attempted to render medical assistance to somebody and botched the rescue, chances were you would be sued. Therefore, educated bystanders wouldn’t dare attempt a rescue.

Since the common law discouraged bystanders from attempting to render medical assistance to those in need, the legislature, recognizing this result was both unacceptable and undesirable, enacted in 2000 what is generally referred to as the Good Samaritan law.

Effect of the Law

New York’s Good Samaritan law carves out specific circumstances when an individual shall not be held liable for ordinary negligence in attempting to render medical assistance. Instead, they will only be held liable in cases of gross negligence.

Gross Negligence

Simply put, negligence is a failure to exercise ordinary care. Gross negligence means a failure to use even slight care, or is conduct that is so careless as to show complete disregard for the rights and safety of others.

When it Applies

The law isn’t found in one centralized part, but rather integrated into various provisions of the NY Public Health Law and the NY Education Law.

Importantly, New York’s Good Samaritan law is limited to medical treatment or assistance. The heart of the law is found in Pub. Health Law §3000-a, which provides in part:

[A]ny person who voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or other emergency outside a hospital, doctor's office or any other place having proper and necessary medical equipment, to a person who is unconscious, ill, or injured, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such emergency treatment unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such person.

Voluntary Act; No Expectation of Monetary Compensation

An important theme here is that the person act both voluntarily, and without the expectation of monetary compensation. This is significant because the protection extends to dentists (Educ. on Law §661[6]), physicians (Educ. Law §6527[2]), nurses (Educ. Law §6909[1]), physicians assistants (Educ. Law §6547) and physical therapists (Educ. Law §6737), provided they are not in a place having proper and necessary medical equipment, and are not rendering their professional or licensed services in the ordinary course of their practices.

Automated External Defibrillator (AED) and Epinephrine Auto-Injector (Epi-pen) Devices

The law is somewhat different, however, for emergency health care providers, or those persons or entities that purchase or make available Automated External Defibrillator (AED) devices, or Epinephrine Auto-Injector devices. In those cases, the emergency health care provider, person or entity, shall not be held liable for the use of that equipment if a person voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency medical treatment, and shall also not be held liable for the use of defectively manufactured equipment.

However, the law expressly states it shall not limit claims against the emergency health care provider, person or entity that purchased or made available that equipment from its own negligence, gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Pub. Health Law §3000-a(2). See, also, Pub. Health Law §3000-b (Automated External Defibrillators) and Pub. Health Law §3000-c (Epinephrine Auto-Injector).

Go Ahead, Be a Hero

Once again, it is safe to play superhero . . . but remember to use at least ordinary care.

(NOTE: Emergency medical technicians and volunteer ambulance services are subject to more technical provisions under Pub. Health Law §3013.)