I was badly injured in a motor vehicle accident. The other driver was a young person driving an older car. The other driver had a passenger in the car. But the driver said that they had a job and were running errands for their boss. What claims do I have?
The first claim you should make is for no-fault benefits from your own car insurance. I have covered these benefits in a prior post. You have 30 days from the accident to file with your insurance company for those benefits.
The second claim you have is against the driver of the vehicle that struck you. But since you mentioned that you were badly injured this may lead to a poor result. I do not know for certain, but there is a good chance that a young person with an old car may only have a minimal liability insurance policy. In New York that is $25,000. Insurance Law § 3420.
Although the insurance policies do not limit recovery in theory, a policy may on a practical level. If this is young person, they may not own anything. They may be in debt. And if you obtain a large judgment against the young person, the young driver can reduce or eliminate that judgment by filing for bankruptcy. But there may be a solution to the problem.
Respondeat Superior
In two different posts, I explained the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. This doctrine holds an employer responsible for acts of their employee while they are working. One post explained liability of an employer for the negligence of a workman on a construction site; the other post explained liability of a retail store for the conduct of employees. Each of those cases dealt with an employee who was on the work premises during operating hours. Your situation may not have occurred during working hours and it definitely did not occur on the driver’s business premises.
Dual Purpose
The “dual purpose doctrine,” holds an employer liable for an employee’s acts while the employee is traveling for both business and personal reasons. See Davis v Larhette, 39 AD3d 693, 834 NYS2d 280 (2d Dept 2007). (An employee stopped for dinner when driving back to a motel during a business trip; the Court found his acts were incidental to and in furtherance of the employer’s business interest.) The doctrine applies when the employment created the necessity for travel. See Cicatello v Sobierajski, 295 AD2d 974, 743 NYS2d 781 (4th Dept 2002)
Whether the dual purpose doctrine applies is dependent on each case’s facts. So if an employee has permission to travel home after his last appointment, that employee is not considered in the course of his employment after the last appointment. Swierczynski v O’Neill, 41 AD3d 1145, 840 NYS2d 855 (4th Dept 2007). If a driver was reimbursed for travel expenses by his employer, that also did not make employer responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Wood v Brownlee, 188 AD3d 1713, 135 NYS3d 742 (4th Dept 2020). But if an outside employee, who works from no fixed location, then that employee may be considered to be in the course of employment from the time they leave home until they return. See McBride v Schenectady, 110 AD2d 1000, 488 NYS2d 288 (3d Dept 1985).
There are numerous possibilities. The best advice would be to find out the young driver’s employer and name them as a defendant in your law suit. Through depositions, you will find out what kind of relationship the young driver had with the employer at the time of your accident.
By James Santner, Esq.
If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.