22 N.Y.2d 446 (1968)
r
r
Section 50-a of the General Municipal Law imposes liability upon a municipality for the negligent operation of vehicles by municipal officers, including liability for injuries sustained by a fellow officer riding as a passenger.
r
r
Summary
r
This case addresses whether the fellow-servant doctrine applies when a New York City police officer is injured due to the negligence of a fellow officer while both are on duty in a police vehicle. The Court of Appeals held that the City of New York is liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a police officer, due to the negligent operation of a vehicle by a fellow officer. The court reasoned that Section 50-a of the General Municipal Law was enacted to remedy the harshness of the common law, which previously shielded municipalities from liability for the negligence of their officers, and that this statute should be interpreted to cover injuries to fellow officers.
r
r
Facts
r
Plaintiff, a New York City police officer, was serving as a “recorder” in a police car operated by a fellow officer. The police car collided with another vehicle while in pursuit of a third vehicle. The plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the collision. The plaintiff then sued the City of New York for damages based on the negligence of the driver, his fellow officer.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, presumably applying the fellow-servant rule. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the fellow-servant doctrine bars a police officer’s recovery against the City of New York for injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of a fellow police officer operating a municipally owned vehicle, when both officers were acting in the scope of their employment.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because Section 50-a of the General Municipal Law imposes liability upon the city for the negligent operation of vehicles by police officers, and this liability extends to injuries sustained by fellow officers.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that at common law, police officers were considered agents performing a public duty, not employees of the municipality, thus shielding the municipality from liability for their negligence. However, Section 50-a of the General Municipal Law was enacted to address the hardship faced by individuals injured by the negligent operation of municipal vehicles. The statute explicitly states that a municipal appointee operating a vehicle is deemed an employee,