Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search
Menu

Alert

Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

November 27, 2024

NYS Court of Appeals: No Municipal Immunity for a Town Employee Involved in an Accident but Not Engaged in Work

In Orellana v. Town of Carmel,a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving the Town of Carmel’s highway superintendent, the New York State Court of Appeals held that the municipality was not entitled to municipal immunity because the highway superintendent was not actually engaged in work at the time of the accident. 

Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1103(b) exempts municipal defendants from liability for ordinary negligence and instead requires that they be held to a higher reckless standard “while actively engaged in work on a highway.” The reckless standard requires a plaintiff to show purposeful conduct by a defendant rather than a mere momentary lapse in judgment that may satisfy the negligence standard.

The plaintiff and the Town of Carmel’s highway superintendent collided on a town highway. The highway superintendent testified that he was not engaged in work at the time of the accident but rather was using the road to return to work. The town argued that, because he was in a town vehicle and on a town highway at the time of the accident, the municipal exemption under VTL § 1103(b) applied. The plaintiff argued that because the highway superintendent was merely using the road to return to work, the exemption did not apply, and the town could be held liable under the ordinary negligence standard. 

The Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiff and held that, because the highway superintendent was not “actually engaged in work on a highway,” VTL § 1103(b) exemption did not apply. In doing so, the Court of Appeals cited the Second and Fourth Department Appellate Divisions holding the same.

Legal professionals, municipalities, and insurance carriers are well advised to explore legal defenses such as municipal immunity but to also be cognizant of their often-limited scope.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; Nick Constantino, associate, at nconstantino@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.

                                                  

12024 N.Y. LEXIS 1607 (Oct. 17, 2024).

Subscribe

Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media

Alerts

Supreme Court Declines to Clarify Impact of Uninjured Class Members on Class Certification—For Now

Alerts

EPA Issues Memorandum Reminding States and Tribes of Their Limited Authority Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

Alerts

Non-Judicial Collateral Remedies, Part 2 – Sale of Collateral

Alerts

NYS Court of Appeals Applies the Assumption of Risk Doctrine to One Golf Course Injury but Not Another

Alerts

Bankruptcy Avoidance Actions, Part 2 – Fraudulent Transfers

Alerts

NYS Court of Appeals: CVA Plaintiff Must Prove Notice of Abuse Applying Then-Prevailing Standards in Decades-Old Sexual Abuse Case