Court Opinion

ID: 9787774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:24:18.532769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:00.380102
License: Public Domain

Dye, J.
(dissenting). I dissent and vote to reverse and to reinstate the trial court’s judgment of dismissal on the ground that the preponderance of the credible evidence supports the facts as found in the Court of Claims. All the proof on the issue of permission to use the State-owned automobile on the occasion in question indisputably establishes that it was being used for private purposes which the driver knew were contrary to the departmental memorandum governing the use of State-owned automobiles. Furthermore, there is no proof that the State had knowledge — actual or implied — that the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in the State car, nor is there any showing that at the time the plaintiff’s presence in the State-owned automobile had any connection with or relation to any State purpose whatsoever. Under such circumstances, the *71negligence of the driver may not be imputed to the State as owner.
Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Froessel and Burke concur with Judge Fuld ; Judge Dye dissents in an opinion in which Judge Van Vookhis concurs.
Judgment affirmed.