Continental Auto Lease Corp. v. Campbell
280 N.Y.S.2d 123, 19 N.Y.2d 350, 227 N.E.2d 28 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The contributory negligence of a bailee-driver is not imputed to an absentee bailor-owner to bar the owner's recovery for property damage against a negligent third party, because the bailor lacks the requisite legal right of control over the bailee's operation of the vehicle.
Facts:
- Continental Auto Lease Corporation, an auto rental business, leased an automobile to a lessee named Kamman.
- The lease was for a four-day period for a fixed sum plus a charge for mileage.
- During the rental period, Kamman, while operating the leased vehicle, was involved in a collision with an automobile driven by Ralph B. Shepard.
- Continental was an absentee owner, meaning no representative of the corporation was present in the vehicle at the time of the accident.
- A subsequent finding determined that both drivers, Kamman and Shepard, were negligent in their operation of their respective vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- Continental Auto Lease Corporation sued Ralph B. Shepard in a trial court for property damage to its vehicle.
- After the suit was filed, Shepard died and his administratrix, Doris B. Campbell, was substituted as the defendant.
- At trial, the jury found both drivers negligent, but the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Continental.
- A judgment was entered for Continental, and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the negligence of a driver who leased a car imputed to the car's absentee owner under the doctrine of contributory negligence, thereby barring the owner from recovering damages from another negligent driver involved in the same accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Keating, J.
No. The negligence of the driver who leased the car is not imputed to the car's absentee owner to bar recovery. The court distinguished between imputed negligence under statute, which widens an owner's liability to protect injured third parties, and imputed contributory negligence, which would unfairly narrow a negligent defendant's liability to an owner who was innocent of any actual negligence. Citing Mills v. Gabriel, the court reaffirmed that an absentee owner is not barred by a driver's negligence. It distinguished Gochee v. Wagner, where an owner was barred because his physical presence in the car gave him the legal right to control its operation. The touchstone for imputing contributory negligence is the owner's right of control over the driver, which can be inferred from physical presence or a master-servant relationship. A standard commercial lease does not grant the lessor such control, as Continental had no interest in where or when the vehicle was driven and no ability to direct Kamman's conduct.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a critical distinction between statutory vicarious liability, designed to compensate injured plaintiffs, and the common law doctrine of imputed contributory negligence. By establishing that the 'right of control' is the determinative factor, the court protects absentee owners, particularly commercial lessors, from being penalized for the negligence of their lessees. This prevents the shield of vicarious liability (Vehicle & Traffic Law § 388) from being used as a sword to defeat a vehicle owner's valid property damage claim against a negligent third party. The ruling ensures that financial responsibility for an accident is apportioned based on fault and control, rather than mere ownership.
