Vicarious Liability and the Case of the Owner/Passenger

New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388 makes an owner of a car responsible for the actions of a driver of that car. If the driver gets into an accident and hurts someone, that injured party can collect from the owner of the vehicle. New York also allows a passenger to sue a driver when both get into an accident.

The case of Schuyler v. Perry brings up an interesting question. The case involves a 2 car collision. The plaintiff was the owner of a car she was also a passenger in. She sues her driver and the 2nd car. The second car argues that any damages award from it should be limited because as an owner, the plaintiff has vicarious liability for her driver's negligence. In other words, the second driver is trying to impute comparative negligence on the plaintiff.

The Court said that vicarious liability could not be invoked in such a case. The Court looked beyond the language of 388 to its intent as expressed by other Courts. The intent of 388 is to expand protections for people injured in car accidents. The Court quoted NY's highest court, "where the general rule now is that a passenger's right to recover should not be barred merely because he bears some special relationship to the driver...." Kalechman v Drew Auto Rental, 33 NY2d 397.

This decision serves two aims. The first is to reaffirm that vicarious liability and CPLR 388 is a weapon for the plaintiff, not the defendant. The second is to underscore the principle that in most cases a passenger is held to have no negligence in a car accident. After all, the passenger wasn't driving. By refusing to impute vicarious liability to the owner/passenger, the Court did not expand the very narrow circumstances (ex: knowingly getting into a car w/ a drunk driver) where a passenger can be negligent. Car crash victims can breathe a sigh of relief; their protections remain intact.