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.