Cunningham v. McNair

8 Citing cases

  1. ROBERTS v. XTRA LEASE, INC.

    98 CV 7559 (ILG) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2001)   Cited 1 times

    Farber v. Smolack, 20 N.Y.2d 198, 203-04, 282 N.Y.S.2d 248, 252 (1967) ("It is true that the New York statute which attributes liability to an owner who has given permission applies in literal terms to the use and operation of a vehicle "in this state" (former Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 59, subd. 1), but, of course, most statutes regulating motor vehicle operations in terms or by necessary implication are written to apply to the State which enacts them. However, since the present litigation is concerned with New York residents, arising from New York relationships, the rule apportioning liability from these relationships ought to be governed by New York law."); Janssen v. Ryder Truck Rental, 246 A.D.2d 364, 667 N.Y.S.2d 369 (1st Dep't 1998) (holding that § 388 applies though none of the parties domiciled in lex loci delicti, New Jersey); Vasguez v. Christian Herald Ass'n, Inc., 186 A.D.2d 467, 588 N.Y.S.2d 291 (1st Dep't 1992); Cunningham v. McNair, 48 A.D.2d 546, 370 N.Y.S.2d 577 (1st Dep't 1975). But see Elson v. Defren, No. 3766, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6269, *10 (1st Dep't, May 29, 2001) (noting that § 388, strictly applied, does not impose liability on "owners of vehicles that have never been registered, used, operated or intended for use in New York and is therefore inapplicable when, as here, such a vehicle is involved in an accident outside of New York's borders."); Fried v. Seippel, 80 N.Y.2d 32, 41, 587 N.Y.S.2d 247, 251 (1992) (holding that owner of a Jamaican rental car that had never been used or intended for use anywhere but on the island of Jamaica was not covered by § 388)).

  2. Franklin v. Nelson Freightways, Inc.

    408 F. Supp. 670 (E.D.N.Y. 1976)   Cited 3 times

    The question remains, however, whether, as plaintiff contends, the New York law concerning vicarious liability applies to this accident or whether, as defendants have alleged, the so-called Connecticut Family Car Doctrine (Connecticut General Statute Annotated 52-182) and the owner-presumption doctrine (CGSA 52-183) should be applied. The most recent case on the subject in New York is Cunningham v. McNair, 48 A.D.2d 546, 370 N.Y.S.2d 577 (1st Dept. July 10, 1975), which we are informed is no longer being appealed to the Court of Appeals, having been settled. The facts in the Cunningham case are very close to those in the case at bar.

  3. Klippel v. U-Haul Co., Northeastern Michigan

    759 F.2d 1176 (4th Cir. 1985)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that state with statute that conflicts with § 388 has a substantial interest in protecting the owners of vehicles in that state from the unexpected liability imposed by § 388 in accidents that fortuitously involve a New York plaintiff

    Croft v. National Car Rental, 56 N.Y.2d 989, 453 N.Y.S.2d 631, 439 N.E.2d 346 (1982). Only one case points the other way, Cunningham v. McNair, 48 A.D.2d 546, 370 N.Y.S.2d 577 (1975). In that case, the plaintiff was a New Yorker in an automobile owned by a New Yorker and registered in that state. It was involved, however, in a collision with an Avis rental car in Maryland and the claim was against Avis. Its car, registered in Virginia, had been leased in Baltimore to a resident of Mississippi. A divided appellate division held that liability could be imposed upon Avis under § 388.

  4. Dou v. TD Bank N.A.

    23-CV-4880 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    “Lex loci delictus is the normal rule, . . . to be rejected only when it is evident that the situs of the accident is the least of the several factors or influences ....” Cunningham v. McNair, 370 N.Y.S.2d 577, 579 (1st Dep't 1975); accord Wong v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 05-CV-04524, 2009 WL 5538644, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2009) (explaining that, in New York choice-of-law analysis, “the traditional preference for the lex loci delictus is maintained, and a threshold is set for exceptional cases”).

  5. Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Chappell

    304 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Pa. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    We have not found any cases that address the precise question presented here: whether Section 388 imposes vicarious liability on the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident outside of New York when the vehicle was not registered in New York but was briefly operated in New York before the accident. Chappell cites Cunningham v. McNair, 370 N.Y.S.2d 577 (App.Div. 1975), as authority for the applicability of Section 388, but Cunningham is not persuasive because it relies on New York choice-of-law analysis rather than direct consideration of whether Section 388 applies extraterritorially. Moreover, Cunningham has been criticized as an incorrect statement of New York law.

  6. Fried v. Seippel

    80 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that owner of a Jamaican rental car that had never been used or intended for use anywhere but on the island of Jamaica was not covered by § 388

    This linkage of an owner's vicarious liability to an owner's obligation to maintain adequate insurance coverage suggests that the Legislature's goal was to ensure that owners of vehicles that are subject to regulation in New York "act responsibly" with regard to those vehicles (Boxer v Gottlieb, 652 F. Supp. 1056, 1065; accord, Johnson v Hertz Corp., 315 F. Supp. 302, 304-305). Such a goal would not be advanced by imposing vicarious liability for vehicles having no connection with New York other than the fortuitous circumstance that their owners may be New York residents (cf., Klippel v U-Haul Co., 759 F.2d 1176, 1182 [New York "has little or no legitimate interest in providing additional security for * * * New York residents who are injured in other (jurisdictions) while riding in vehicles having no connection with New York"]; see also, Herzog, Conflict of Laws, 27 Syracuse L Rev 17, 29-31 [criticizing Cunningham v McNair ( 48 A.D.2d 546) and suggesting that due process would forbid applying New York law in these circumstances]). Thus, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 does not provide a basis for holding Avis or NCR liable in these cases, since, regardless of any theoretical possibility that Avis and NCR were the de facto owners of the accident vehicles, the vehicles were registered, operated and used exclusively on the island of Jamaica, far from New York's borders.

  7. King v. Car Rentals, Inc.

    29 A.D.3d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In addition, the vehicle involved in the accident here was registered, insured, and rented in New Jersey. These facts bear on the choice of law as well ( see Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Am., supra at 197; Cunningham v. McNair, 48 AD2d 546, 549; Diehl v. Ogorewac, 836 F Supp 88, 93-94 [ED NY 1993]; Buglioli v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 811 F Supp 105, affd 999 F2d 536 [1993]; White v. Smith, 398 F Supp 130). New Jersey's involvement in this matter is not, moreover, accidental.

  8. DaRosa v. R F Transp. Co., No

    No. BRCV1999-01308 (Mass. Cmmw. Aug. 28, 2001)   Cited 1 times

    Chila v. Owens, 348 F. Supp. 1207, 1211 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). See also Cunningham v. McNair, 48 A.D.2d 546 (1975) (applying § 388 to accident occurring in Maryland); Smolack, supra (applying § 388 to accident occurring in North Carolina); and Johnson v. Hertz Corp., supra (applying § 388 to accident occurring in New Jersey. Non-New York Courts Have Applied § 388 to Accidents Which Did Not Occur in New York and Where the Litigation is in Their Courts Through The Application of Modern Choice-of-Law Principles