LeRoy v. Tremper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LeRoy v. Tremper

267 A.D. 387, 46 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4732

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D. 387 (LeRoy v. Tremper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

LeRoy v. Tremper, 267 A.D. 387, 46 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The proof that license plates, the property of respondents, were upon the car concerned in the accident estab[388]*388listed prima facie that the automobile was owned and controlled by them and that the operator was engaged in their business at the time. (Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N. Y. 249.) This proof, however, was fully and completely overcome by respondents’ evidence, which showed that the car was not then and never had been owned by them; that it was owned and operated by defendant Harold Barton; that defendant Alfred Barton, who was employed by respondents as' a handy man, took the license plates from the place of business of his employers without consent; and that the automobile was not operated in the business of the respondents.

If it be assumed that the plates were loaned to the owner of the car with the consent of the respondents, or that there was an issue as to that fact, the uncontradicted affirmative proof is that the car was not under the control nor operated in the business of respondents.

In this State one who lends his license plates is not liable, merely by reason of such loan, for the negligence of the borrower. The theory of liability founded on nuisance (McDonald v. Dundon, 242 Mass. 229) does not seem to have been followed in this State. (Cf. Rathfelder v. Flag, 257 App. Div. 71, affd. 282 N. Y. 563; Buono v. Stewart Motor Trucks, Inc., 263 App. Div. 969; Reese v. Reamore, 265 App. Div. 459; Wyka v. L. A. D. Motors Corp., 264 App. Div. 890.)

The case against defendant Harold Barton is not affected by the judgment from which this appeal is taken.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. . The appeal from the alleged order should be dismissed, without costs. No such order is printed in the record on appeal.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johustou, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. [See post, p. 906.]

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

Per Curiam.

The proof that license plates, the property of respondents, were upon the car concerned in the accident estab[388]*388listed prima facie that the automobile was owned and controlled by them and that the operator was engaged in their business at the time. (Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N. Y. 249.) This proof, however, was fully and completely overcome by respondents’ evidence, which showed that the car was not then and never had been owned by them; that it was owned and operated by defendant Harold Barton; that defendant Alfred Barton, who was employed by respondents as' a handy man, took the license plates from the place of business of his employers without consent; and that the automobile was not operated in the business of the respondents.

If it be assumed that the plates were loaned to the owner of the car with the consent of the respondents, or that there was an issue as to that fact, the uncontradicted affirmative proof is that the car was not under the control nor operated in the business of respondents.

In this State one who lends his license plates is not liable, merely by reason of such loan, for the negligence of the borrower. The theory of liability founded on nuisance (McDonald v. Dundon, 242 Mass. 229) does not seem to have been followed in this State. (Cf. Rathfelder v. Flag, 257 App. Div. 71, affd. 282 N. Y. 563; Buono v. Stewart Motor Trucks, Inc., 263 App. Div. 969; Reese v. Reamore, 265 App. Div. 459; Wyka v. L. A. D. Motors Corp., 264 App. Div. 890.)

The case against defendant Harold Barton is not affected by the judgment from which this appeal is taken.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. . The appeal from the alleged order should be dismissed, without costs. No such order is printed in the record on appeal.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johustou, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. [See post, p. 906.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 387, 46 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroy-v-tremper-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack