Hassan v. Hendel Products, Inc., 92 N.Y.2d 354 (1998)
Under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, a statutory owner of a vehicle is not precluded from bringing a claim against other statutory owners for injuries sustained as a result of the negligent operation of the vehicle by a permissive user.
Summary
Marianne Hassan, an employee of Hendel Products, Inc., was injured while a passenger in a company car leased from First Union Auto Finance, Inc. Her husband, who was driving with permission, was killed in the accident. Hassan sued Hendel and First Union as owners of the vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hassan, as a statutory owner due to her exclusive use of the vehicle, could not sue co-owners. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the statute does not preclude a statutory owner from suing other owners for injuries caused by a permissive driver.
Facts
Marianne Hassan was employed by Hendel Products, Inc., and provided with a company vehicle leased from First Union Auto Finance, Inc., for both business and personal use. She used the vehicle for approximately two years. On May 25, 1997, Hassan was a passenger in the vehicle, driven by her husband, with the permission of Hendel and First Union. The car collided with a truck, resulting in her husband’s death and her severe injuries.
Procedural History
Hassan sued First Union and Hendel as owners of the vehicle, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s order and granted summary judgment in favor of Hendel and First Union, concluding that Hassan was a statutory owner and could not sue co-owners. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a statutory owner of a vehicle, as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128, is precluded from bringing a claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against other statutory owners of the same vehicle for injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of a permissive user.
Holding
No, because Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 does not limit the class of possible plaintiffs to non-owners, and the statute’s purpose is to ensure access to a financially responsible party for those injured by the negligence of a permissive user.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, noting that it does not limit the class of plaintiffs to non-owners. The statute states that “Every owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle…by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner.” The court emphasized that the defendants, Hendel and First Union, were owners who permitted the negligent driver to operate the vehicle. Therefore, whether or not Hassan was also an “owner,” her injuries caused by a driver operating the vehicle with the owners’ consent brought her within the statute’s protection. The court reiterated the purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 is to “ensure access by injured persons to ‘a financially responsible [party] against whom to recover for injuries’ ” and “to impose liability upon the owner of a vehicle ‘for the negligence of a person legally operating the car with the permission, express or implied, of the owner.’” (Morris v Snappy Car Rental, 84 NY2d 21, 27 [1994]). The court did not find any language suggesting an intention to preclude a statutory owner from recovering against other owners under the statute. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.