Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

This is the fifth post in a series dealing with the topic of third party lawsuits in motor vehicle accident cases, by which we mean liability for parties who were not directly involved in the accident. Last time, we looked at truck accident cases and the possibility of vicarious liability for failure to properly supervise trucking employees to ensure compliance with federal and state safety rules.

Another possibility for pursuing third party liability in motor vehicle accident cases arises when product defects contribute to the accident. When an accident is caused by vehicle defects or malfunctions, or a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, it is important to work with an experienced attorney to seek compensation from responsible parties, including manufacturers, distributors and sellers. 

There are several legal theories upon which product liability cases may be based. With negligence claims, an accident victim sues a manufacturer or retailer for failure to exercise reasonable care in the design or manufacture of the motor vehicle. Distributors and retailers may also be sued for failure to take reasonable care in the inspection of the vehicle or failure to provide the purchaser adequate warnings or instructions about the product. Product liability cases based on strict liability do not require proof of fault, but do require proof that the manufacturer caused the victim’s injury. Product liability cases may also be based on breach of warranty claims.

Last time, we began discussing the issue of liability in the context of motor vehicle accidents. As we noted, it is important for accident victims to explore all possibilities in terms of liability, including the possibility of comparative negligence and vicarious liability, particularly employer liability for the actions of employees and independent contractors.

We’ve already pointed out that employers are generally accountable for the wrongful actions of employees acting within the scope of employment, but are only liable for the wrongful actions of independent contractors in limited situations. One important limitation on vicarious liability is foreseeability, which limits the type of actions for which an employer can be held responsible. 

Established New York case law has it that, to be held vicariously liable, the employee’s actions must have been generally foreseeable by the employer, as well as naturally incident to the employment. In the context of motor vehicle accidents, this means that the general type of employee conduct which led to the accident must have been reasonably expected and must be a natural part of the motorist’s work duties.

We’ve been looking in recent posts at the issue of vicarious liability in the context of motor vehicle accidents involving employees and independent contractors. Last time, we looked particularly at the foreseeability and scope of employment requirements. As we noted, the key question with scope of employment is whether the employee was doing the employer’s work at the time of the accident.

There are a variety of factors courts consider when determining whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment. These factors include, first of all, the time, place and location of the act. In the context of a motor vehicle crash, the court would be looking for where and when the crash occurred. Did it occur on the employer’s premises or on a job site? Did the crash occur before, during or after working hours? These and other such questions are important to consider. 

Another factor is the actual relationship between the employer and employee and how this relates to the employee’s work duties. If the worker’s job description or contract doesn’t include certain activities, but is an established agreement that the employee engages in those activities, the latter may be considered within the scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability. In cases where the employee did not perform his or her duties as directed or as they are ordinarily performed, courts will also consider the extent of the departure and whether any wrongdoing that caused injury could have been reasonably anticipated by the employer.

In a previous post, we mentioned that third party liability is an important issue to explore in motor vehicle accident cases where there may have been other parties who contributed to the accident other than the individuals directly involved in the crash.

The possibility of pursuing such third-party liability really depends on the circumstances of the case, and it is important to work with an experienced attorney who can help identify all potentially liable parties and hold them accountable. One possibility for third party liability is vicarious liability, which involves holding employers liable for the wrongdoing of their employees.  

Under New York Law, an employer is generally liable for the actions of an employee as long as the employee was acting within the scope of employment. Employers are generally not going to be liable for the wrongful actions of independent contractors since they do not exercise as much control over their actions. In New York, the courts will determine whether an employment relationship exists on the basis of whether one party maintains general supervisory powers the other. If the supervision only amounts to incidental control, there is no employment relationship that may give rise to vicarious liability.

Last time, we began looking at a case in which a Georgia man is suing a teen he accuses of using Snapchat immediately prior to the accident. The man—who suffered a traumatic brain injury—is also suing Snapchat. As we noted, the teen and her friends say the man actually pulled into their lane, not giving her enough time to stop.

For its part, Snapchat denies that it encourages its users to use the app while driving, and that it displays warnings to users to not use the program while operating a motor vehicle.  Police have, so far, chosen not to cite the teen for speeding partly because of conflicting accounts from her passengers about the speed of the vehicle. Police have said that the man may also have committed a moving violation by failing to signal before changing lanes. 

The case is an interesting one not only from the standpoint of social medial use and distracted driving, but also with respect to the issue of negligence in personal injury cases. First of all, there is the issue of comparative negligence, if both parties are found to be partially at fault. Then there is the issue of third party negligence for Snapchat.

Some of our readers, perhaps many, have heard of the social media platform called Snapchat. For those who haven’t, Snapchat is an image messaging application that allows users to take videos and pictures which are live for only a matter of seconds before they disappear. The app doesn’t support saving received messages, but it is possible to capture screenshots of the images.

Snapchat has been criticized for encouraging people to send inappropriate content without repercussion. Now, it seems, the company is being sued for encouraging distracted driving. 

A Georgia man who was struck by a teenager using the program is accusing the company of negligence. The accident apparently occurred when the 18-year-old’s vehicle was travelling at over 100 miles per hour—specifically 107 m.p.h., according to accident reconstruction specialists. The teen apparently had three friends in her vehicle at the time of the crash. He claims she had been using a Snapchat feature which allows users to clock the speed of vehicles in an attempt to push her vehicle to higher speeds. As a result of the crash, the man apparently suffered a traumatic brain injury.