F: Hertz (D) leased rental car to Codling. Codling permitted D to drive this car. D neg. collided with 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 the bailee, the bailee loans it to a sub-bailee, the sub-bailee causes damage, and the bailor is liable.
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
Support us by:
•Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addiction.
•Checking out our amazing store on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com