43 N.Y.2d 722 (1977)

If a jury finds that a vehicle owner forbade the driver from carrying passengers, the owner is not liable to a passenger injured due to the driver’s negligence.

Summary

This case concerns the liability of a vehicle owner for injuries sustained by an unauthorized passenger due to the driver’s negligent operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that if the jury finds the owner forbade the driver from carrying passengers, the owner isn’t liable to a passenger injured by the driver’s negligence. The court declined to reconsider the existing New York rule on this matter, emphasizing the jury’s role in resolving factual disputes, particularly those involving credibility. Evidentiary rulings by the trial court were also upheld, finding either no error or the issues not properly preserved for review.

Facts

The plaintiff, Averill, was injured while riding as a passenger in a tractor owned by Derrico and driven by Jenkins, who died in the accident. The tractor was completely destroyed. Averill claimed negligence on the part of Jenkins caused his injuries. Derrico asserted that Jenkins was forbidden from carrying passengers.

Procedural History

The case proceeded to trial, where the jury found in favor of the defendant, Derrico. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Averill appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings regarding photographs of the tractor and conversations between the deceased driver and the defendant.

2. Whether the court should reconsider the existing New York rule that a vehicle owner is not liable to an unauthorized passenger if the driver was forbidden from carrying passengers.

3. Whether the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the relationship between Federal Transportation Act and New York Public Service Commission rules restricting the transportation of unauthorized persons and the issues in the case.

Holding

1. No, because the issues were either not preserved for review or without merit.

2. No, because the court declined to reconsider the existing rule of law in New York.

3. No, because the appellant failed to request a pertinent charge or object on this ground to the instructions as given by the court.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the jury’s role in resolving conflicts in the evidence, especially concerning credibility. The court declined to reconsider the established New York rule, stating, “if the jury finds that the owner of a motor vehicle has forbidden its user to carry any passenger in the vehicle, the owner is not liable to a person who nevertheless is permitted to ride as a passenger for injuries suffered in consequence of the negligent operation of the vehicle by the user.” The court addressed several asserted errors by the trial court, finding them either unpreserved or meritless. The court deemed the admission of a photograph of a “sister tractor” proper, as it was a fair representation of the tractor involved in the accident. The exclusion of police photographs was also deemed proper as the witness could not attest to their accuracy. The court noted that the appellant failed to request a specific jury charge regarding the Federal Transportation Act and Public Service Commission rules, thus failing to preserve the issue for appeal. The court determined that the testimony of conversations between the appellant and the deceased driver was properly excluded as hearsay. Lastly, the court dismissed the claim that undue emphasis was placed on conversations between other employees and the deceased driver, as no protest was raised at trial.