|
AN EMPLOYER/OWNER OF A VEHICLE MAY AVOID LIABILITY THROUGH THE USE OF RESTRICTIONS WHEN ALLOWING AN EMPLOYEE TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE. In New York, a driver's negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle is imputed to the owner thus making the owner liable for injuries inflicted by the driver's fault. In many cases, this allows the injured plaintiff to have a solvent source to look to if a personal injury action arises. However, in Murdza v. Zimmerman, 99 N.Y.2d 375, 756 N.Y.S.2d 505 (2003), the Court of Appeals has recently narrowed this long standing policy. In Murdza, the employer allowed one of its employees to drive the employer's leased vehicle with instructions that only the employee or the employee's spouse could drive the vehicle. However, in violation of that instruction, the employee allowed her boyfriend to operate the vehicle. The operator of the vehicle was then involved in an accident injuring the plaintiff. Predictably, the plaintiff sued the driver, employer and the rental agency that owned the vehicle and leased it to the employer. Under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388, the vicarious liability statute that imputes the driver's negligence to the owner, the plaintiff argued that the employer and leasing company where liable due to the driver's negligence. Not so holds the Court. In an unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals held that while the rental agency that leased the vehicle to the employer can certainly be vicariously liable to the plaintiff, the employer is not. This is as a result of the Court of Appeals' construction of "permission" as defined under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. The liability of a rental agency is treated differently than the employer's potential liability as the rental agency must be constructively deemed to have given permission to a third-party's use of the car even if a lease provision restricts the use of the vehicle to the lessee and his immediate family. This was a holding, largely made on public policy grounds, in Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Court v. Continental Net. Amer. Group Co., 35 N.Y.2d 260, 360 N.Y.S.2d 859 (1974). However, the same broad notion does not apply to the employers who, as the Court perceives it, are in a better position to expect an employee to comply with the restrictions of use of the vehicle. As such, if the driver of the employer's vehicle is operating it outside of the restrictions imposed by the employer, the employer can now be free from any vicarious liability which otherwise would attach. Since this holding drastically changes the scope of vicarious liability as it impacts employers, it is time to consider summary judgment motions in appropriate cases. Likewise, for employers, it may be time to place express restrictions on its employees with reference to the operation of the employer's vehicles to attempt to lessen the potential vicarious liability. |