Janssen v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
Royal Janssen v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered October 11, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to apply New Jersey law and granted plaintiffs cross motion to apply New York law, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Since Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 is a loss-allocating rule, as to which the jurisdiction of the parties’ domiciles has paramount interest (Schultz v Boy Scouts, 65 NY2d 189 , 197), and since the statute is consistent with the law of all of the parties’ domiciles, the court properly concluded that New York law, rather than that of New Jersey, the locus of the accident, should govern. Application of section 388 would thus be consistent with the parties’ expectations (Diehl v Ogorewac, 836 F Supp 88, 92-94 ), and since none of the parties is domiciled in New Jersey, that State will neither be benefitted nor burdened *365 by the outcome of this litigation. Under these circumstances, the fact that the parties are domiciled in different States does not require application of the law of the locus of the accident as a “tie-breaker”. We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding that Section 388 is loss-allocating rule and thus "the jurisdiction of the parties' domiciles has paramount interest")
-
(vicarious liability of automobile owners under § 388 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law)
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.