Croft v. National Car Rental

New York Court of Appeals

Croft v. National Car Rental

439 N.E.2d 346, 56 N.Y.2d 989, 453 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3551

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 346 (Croft v. National Car Rental) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Croft v. National Car Rental, 439 N.E.2d 346, 56 N.Y.2d 989, 453 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3551 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint granted.

The complaint against defendant National Car Rental should have been dismissed on defendant’s motion for failure to state a cause of action under the law of Vermont. There is no basis on this record for choosing New York’s law over that of Vermont, the site of the accident, for determining the question whether an owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver operating a car with the owner’s consent. Plaintiff and her husband, the driver [991]*991whose negligence caused the accident, were both British citizens. The car was registered in Michigan to defendant, a Minnesota corporation doing business in New York. The car was rented in Montreal for return four days later to defendant’s New York City office. The contacts with New York are minimal. Moreover, plaintiff identifies no significant interest of New York in imposing on this owner vicarious liability for an injury when neither the injured party, the place of accident, nor the automobile have any connection with this State (cf. Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint granted.

The complaint against defendant National Car Rental should have been dismissed on defendant’s motion for failure to state a cause of action under the law of Vermont. There is no basis on this record for choosing New York’s law over that of Vermont, the site of the accident, for determining the question whether an owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver operating a car with the owner’s consent. Plaintiff and her husband, the driver [991]*991whose negligence caused the accident, were both British citizens. The car was registered in Michigan to defendant, a Minnesota corporation doing business in New York. The car was rented in Montreal for return four days later to defendant’s New York City office. The contacts with New York are minimal. Moreover, plaintiff identifies no significant interest of New York in imposing on this owner vicarious liability for an injury when neither the injured party, the place of accident, nor the automobile have any connection with this State (cf. Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 N.E.2d 346, 56 N.Y.2d 989, 453 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croft-v-national-car-rental-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack