Osborn v. Hertz Corp.

California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District · 1988 · Torts

TortsNegligent Entrustmentnegligent entrustmentrental car companyvalid driver's licensedrunk drivingsummary judgmentduty to investigate

Facts

Hertz rented a car to Dennis Ege after he presented a valid California driver's license and while he was sober. Later, Ege drove plaintiff Joan Elaine Osborn into a tree while intoxicated, seriously injuring her. Plaintiff alleged Hertz negligently entrusted the car to Ege because it should have investigated further and would have discovered his prior drunk-driving convictions and earlier license suspension. Plaintiff also sought to amend to add claims based on Hertz's failure to question or warn Ege and for intentional infliction of bodily injury.

Issue

Whether a rental car company negligently entrusts a vehicle to a customer who appears sober and presents a valid driver's license by failing to investigate the customer's past drunk-driving history, ask whether he intends to drive drunk, or warn him not to drive under the influence. Also, whether plaintiff should have been allowed to amend to add negligence and intentional tort theories based on the same alleged omissions.

Rule

A person or entity that entrusts a vehicle is liable for negligent entrustment only if it knew or, from the circumstances, should have known the driver was incompetent or unfit, and the injury was proximately caused by that incompetence. A rental car company is not negligent as a matter of law for renting to a person who is lawfully qualified and apparently fit to drive, and absent legal disqualification it may rely on the customer's valid driver's license as sufficient evidence of driving qualification. There is no duty in these circumstances to investigate past drunk-driving history, ask if the customer intends to drive under the influence, or warn a sober customer of the generally known dangers of drunk driving.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Sierra Peak Rentals leased a sedan to Nolan Price after inspecting his valid California driver's license and matching his signature. Nolan was calm, coherent, and showed no signs of drinking. That night, after leaving a bar, Nolan drove drunk and injured his passenger, Tessa Kim.

If Tessa sues Sierra Peak Rentals for negligent entrustment, which is the strongest argument for Sierra Peak?

Explanation. Negligent entrustment depends on what the owner or permitter knew or should have known at the time of entrustment about the driver's incompetence or unfitness. The majority held that a rental company is not negligent as a matter of law when it rents to a sober, apparently fit customer who presents a valid driver's license, and it may rely on that license absent legal disqualification or clues of present unfitness.