New Jersey car dealership can't be held financially liable for injuries woman suffered when an unlicensed driver in one of its loaners plowed into her in Downtown Crossing, court rules
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that car dealerships that loan out cars to customers awaiting repairs to their own vehicles are in the rental business, and that means they are covered by a federal law that prohibits their financial liability for any problems caused by the cars' drivers - even if they are unlicensed and in a car that wasn't supposed to be taken out of state.
The ruling means that Maria Blanca Elena Garcia, a visiting Spanish woman who suffered a fractured spine and pelvis and pelvic hemorrhaging when Shanitqua Steele ran a red light and slammed into her and other pedestrians at School and Washington streets downtown on Aug. 18, 2016 cannot collect any money from the New Jersey dealership that had given Steele's then husband a loaner car.
This is because, as a rental business, the New Jersey Mercedes dealership that loaned a car to Kolawole Oke is subject to a 2005 federal law that prohibits financial actions against rental-car companies for the actions of their rental customers, the court said, adding that even if the dealership failed to verify that Oke himself had a valid license or to impress on Oke the need not to let an "incompetent" person take the wheel:
[No] rational view of the record supports a finding that the failure to verify Oke's driver's license caused Steele to drive the courtesy vehicle, resulting in the plaintiffs' injuries.
The court said loaner cars are really rentals, even if no money is exchanged, because money is not the only way to establish a rental transaction occurred, specifically, that car dealerships do accept a form of payment for letting customers jump into dealer cars - the anticipation of payment for the repair work for which the customers brought in their cars.
However, the court also overturned a Suffolk Superior Court judge's ruling that the woman could not sue Oke, whom the court said disregarded his loaner agreement not to travel more than 100 miles from the dealership and not let anybody else drive the car.
The court said that Garcia could make a case for "negligent entrustment" against him because he knew Steele did not have a license when he parked at the crowded intersection so he could go speak to his lawyer about something - and left the car running, with Steele in the passenger seat, effectively giving her permission to drive the car in his absence.
A BTD parking officer told Steele to move the car, she slid over to the driver's side and inadvertently took the car out of park, making it roll through the intersection just as Garcia and other pedestrians were walking through the crosswalk with a green light.
While in Boston, he left the vehicle illegally parked with the key in the ignition and the engine running as he conducted an errand; his then-wife, who did not have a driver's license and was not an authorized driver under the courtesy vehicle agreements, remained in the vehicle. When a parking officer required that the vehicle be moved, the wife moved into the driver's seat and pushed a button. The vehicle rolled forward through a red light and struck one of the plaintiffs, causing serious injuries. ...
The record shows that Oke left the courtesy vehicle running with the key in the ignition while it was illegally parked; he attended to his errand while Steele remained in the vehicle. This conduct, a rational finder of fact could reasonably conclude, constituted implicit permission or knowing consent for Steele to move the illegally parked vehicle if needed.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 106.86 KB |
Ad:
Comments
BTD officer
Seems like that BTD officer should also be sued. He should have checked if the passenger was a licensed driver before asking them to move and should have made sure the path was clear before encouraging them to do so.
BTD aren't cops
It isn't their job to vet someone's suitability to drive. Highly unlikely the ticket agent told her to put the car in gear, close her eyes, and floor it.
BTD as illustrated by this
BTD as illustrated by this case however should be cutting tickets for illegally parked cars, not telling them to move
Then you cry and wail and
Then you cry and wail and hand wring about how the meter maids should have given them a break or a warning or a chance to move it first before writing a ticket.. go soak your head in a bucket..
Are you familiar with this area?
The street where she was illegally parked is incredibly narrow. It is a colonial lane.
This lawsuit and also the BTD blame going on demonstrates how hard people try to absolve bad drivers of responsibility for their actions.
The response should be a
The response should be a ticket, not a courtesy.
BTD should be doing BOTH.
BTD should be doing BOTH. Snap a picture and start the ticket writing process but force the people to move at the same time. If it's a ticketable offense that means the car's in the way.
This is one law I agree with.
This is one law I agree with. Huge lawsuits going for the deep pockets of car rental companies were costing everyone who ever rented a car. Especially in New York, where an old law intended to hold 1920s robber barons responsible, rather than their chauffeur, when their Packard or DeSoto hit someone, was being misused by lawyers looking to enrich themselves. Car rentals in NYS had huge surcharges as a result.
The right way to protect people from the costs of car accidents is higher minimum insurance requirements.
I like how Quebec does it. The province is the insurance company, which means everyone is covered if they're injured in a car accident. Even pedestrians with no car insurance of their own.