20 N.Y.2d 547 (1967)

The definition of a “hit and run” driver under the MVAIC endorsement and relevant statutes includes situations where the identity of the other vehicle or driver cannot be ascertained after a delayed manifestation of injury, even if there was initially no apparent reason to exchange information at the scene of the accident.

Summary

Oscar Riemenschneider, a passenger in a car struck from behind, initially felt fine and told the driver so. Later, he experienced pain and sought medical attention. Because the driver of Riemenschneider’s vehicle hadn’t obtained the other driver’s information (as no immediate damage was apparent), Riemenschneider sought to recover from the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC). The MVAIC argued it wasn’t a “hit and run” because the other driver *could* have been identified at the scene. The court held that the inability to identify the other driver *after* the injury manifested itself qualified the incident as a “hit and run” under the statute, supporting Riemenschneider’s claim against MVAIC.

Facts

1. Riemenschneider was a passenger in a car that was rear-ended.
2. The driver of Riemenschneider’s car, seeing no damage, asked Riemenschneider if he was alright. Riemenschneider said yes. The drivers did not exchange information.
3. Riemenschneider later experienced pain and sought medical treatment.
4. Because the other driver’s identity was now unknown, Riemenschneider filed a claim against MVAIC, arguing it was a “hit and run”.

Procedural History

1. Riemenschneider’s guardian filed a claim with MVAIC and demanded arbitration.
2. MVAIC sought a stay of arbitration, arguing it wasn’t a “hit and run”.
3. Special Term denied the stay.
4. The Appellate Division affirmed.
5. MVAIC appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the definition of a “hit and run” accident, for the purposes of MVAIC coverage, includes situations where the identity of the other driver is unascertainable *after* a delayed manifestation of injury, even if the driver *could* have been identified at the scene of the accident?

Holding

Yes, because the statute’s purpose is to protect injured parties when the responsible driver’s identity cannot be ascertained, and this protection should extend to situations where the need for identification arises only after a delayed manifestation of injury.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the statutory definition of “hit and run” (driver “whose identity is unascertainable”) is broader than the colloquial understanding of the term. The crucial time for identification is when the injury manifests itself, making it impossible to seek recourse against the responsible party. The court stated that, “An injured person who is not aware of his injury until it is too late to take steps to make the necessary identification is in precisely the same situation of deprivation of remedy as he would be if he knew he was hurt but the other driver left the scene without opportunity to identify him.” While acknowledging potential abuse, the court found no evidence of bad faith in this case. The court emphasized the beneficial and protective function of the statute, construing it to protect injured persons when recourse against the other driver has become impossible. The dissent argued that a hit and run accident requires the *inability* to ascertain identity *at the time* of the accident. The dissenters feared potential abuse from the majority’s broader construction of the MVAIC endorsement.