Friday, October 10, 2014

Shuck v. Means case brief summary


Shuck v. Means case brief summary

F: Hertz (D) leased rental car to Codling. Codling permitted D to drive this car. D neg. collided w/ and injured P. D was uninsured at the time of the accident.
Ruled for P


I: Whether car rental agency liable for neg. of an individual who drives its rental car but to whom it did not rent the car 


R: Car rental agency is liable for neg. of an individual who drives its rental car, even though it did not rent the car to that individual.

A: D gave permission for the use of its vehicle. This single fact makes D liable for D’s neg. It does not matter that it did not give permission.
In this case, the court finds liability not based upon an employment relationship, but based upon a bailment. A bailor entrusts a car to bailee, the bailee loans it to a subbailee, the subbailee causes damage, and the bailor is liable.


C: affirmed


Co: GR: merely giving you something, that doesn’t make bailor vicarious liable
Merely b/c I entrust with chattel, doesn’t not mean that I am liable
Exception: car statute in this case

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.