Tavares v. Zipcar, Inc.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment for Zipcar in a negligent entrustment and negligent maintenance action arising from injuries caused by an intoxicated driver using a remotely accessed rental vehicle. The court held that applicable California statutes did not impose on a remote rental car company an affirmative duty to inquire whether a renter appeared impaired at the time of rental. The court also upheld the trial court’s ruling concerning vehicle-owner liability under the Graves Amendment.

Holdings

1. Civil Code section 1939.37 exempts remote rental car companies from the Vehicle Code section 14608 in-person driver's-license inspection requirement and, consistently with that statutory authorization for remote rentals, Zipcar owed no affirmative duty to assess whether Ismail appeared impaired at the time of the rental.
2. Zipcar had no duty to equip its remote-rental vehicles with a breathalyzer or other technology to detect whether a driver was intoxicated or impaired.
3. The Graves Amendment preempts any claim imposing vicarious liability on Zipcar based solely on its ownership of the rented vehicle under Vehicle Code section 17150.
4. Summary judgment for Zipcar was proper because Tavares could not establish a duty supporting his negligent-entrustment or negligent-maintenance claims, and his ownership-based vicarious-liability claim was preempted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a remote rental car company owes an affirmative duty to inquire whether a renter appears impaired at the time of a remote rental.
2. Whether a remote rental car company has a duty to equip its vehicles with technology to detect driver intoxication or impairment.
3. Whether California's permissive-use owner-liability statute imposes vicarious liability on a rental vehicle owner notwithstanding the federal Graves Amendment.
4. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the undisputed facts.

Disposition

affirmed