Legal Opinion

Fluegel v. Coudert

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 23, 1927PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Per curiam

We think the uncontradicted evidence necessitates the conclusion that the driver of the motor car was using it at the time of the accident for his own purposes exclusively, without the permission and against the commands of the defendant, his employer (Der Ohannessian v. Elliott, 233 N. Y. 326).

This being so, the plaintiff gains nothing from section 282-e of the Highway Law (Consol. Laws, ch. 25), which provides that “ every owner of a motor vehicle operated upon a public highway shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Potts v. . PardeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  2. Van Blaricom v. . DodgsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. Der Ohannessian v. . ElliottNew York Court of Appeals · 1922

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Psota v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
  2. Grant v. KnepperNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
  3. Irwin v. KleinNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  4. St. Andrassy v. MooneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
  5. Souza v. CortiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API