• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

D. Murali

ALEXEY Konovalov, a Russian diplomat driving in New York City, rear-ended another car. Konovalov's passenger, Svetlana Tikhonova, was seriously injured and sued Konovalov and Ford, the car's owner. Thus informs a recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals.

If you wonder how Ford, a car manufacturer, is sued against, the text of the judgment, available on http://straylight.law.cornell.edu, explains in a footnote that Ford Motor Company owned the car and that Ford Motor Credit Corporation was the lessor, pursuant to a long-term lease with the Russian mission.

This is a case where two statutes intersect, explains Judge Rosenblatt. One, there is Section 388 of the Vehicle & Traffic Law stating that vehicle owners are vicariously liable for the negligence of those whom they allow to drive their vehicles: "Every owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner."

And two, Section 254d of Title 22 of the US Code (22 USC), is about diplomatic immunity, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. "The question before us is whether a vehicle owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of a diplomat, himself immune from suit. Put differently, when these two statutes go head to head, does the driver's immunity extinguish the vicarious liability of the owner?" said Rosenblatt, presenting the issue. Section 1364 of 28 USC requires members of a diplomatic mission to secure automobile liability insurance; it also gives the injured right to sue the insurance company. Ford would have been happier if Tikhonova's claim for compensation had been met by the insurance company, but she argued that the diplomat's minimum statutory insurance coverage is far short of what it would take to compensate her for her injuries. Therefore, the court went into the question whether Section 1364 is "an exclusive remedy" and said `no'.

More important to the case was whether the driver's immunity shields the owner from liability. The court conceded the driver Konovalov's diplomatic immunity, and Ford, the car owner, wanted to piggyback on such privilege.

To press its point, Ford cited Sikora vs Keillor, a 1963 case, where the court had held that owners were not liable when they lent their cars to emergency workers such as volunteer fire-fighters. Rosenblatt reasoned that to have held otherwise "would have discouraged volunteers from responding to emergencies by reducing the number of people willing to lend vehicles to those volunteers."

In that decision there was "the strong policy interest in protecting those who aid emergency workers," said the judge. "That result, however, is not compelled in every instance in which the vehicle's operator benefits from some immunity. We do not see a strong State policy in favour of renting cars to diplomats," added Rosenblatt, before ruling against Ford, and thus affirming the earlier decision of the Appellate Division.

"Imposing liability on the Ford companies would not jeopardise the ability of diplomats to rent or operate motor vehicles," Judge Saxe of the Appellate Division had said then. "They are already, in any event, required to maintain insurance and protected from direct lawsuit. Protecting diplomats' lessors from liability provides these lessors with an unnecessary protection, without any public policy rationale."

LawLane@TheHindu.co.in

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Investment quiz

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line