Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV17845, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17845    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff Eliburn Yaghoubi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Lars Friberg (“Friberg”) and The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On October 24, 2019, Hertz filed an answer. On May 12, 2020, Friberg filed an answer.

On December 27, 2022, Hertz filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on March 14, 2023. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

Trial is scheduled for April 21, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Hertz request the Court grant summary judgment on the basis that both causes of action are barred by the Graves Amendment.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP § 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”  (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) 

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

49 U.S.C. §30106, also known as the Graves Amendment, provides: (a) In General. - An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if - (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner). (b) Financial Responsibility Laws. - Nothing in this section supersedes the law of any State or political subdivision thereof - (1) imposing financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle; or (2) imposing liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that Hertz rented out a vehicle to Friberg, which was subsequently involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in injury to Plaintiff. Friberg was not an employee of Hertz and was not operating the rental vehicle on Hertz’s behalf. (UMF 6

The Graves Amendment prevents a rental car company, and its affiliates, from being held vicariously liable for the acts/omissions of its renters. Under the Graves Amendment, a rental car company can only be held liable for damages caused by rental car drivers when a rental car company commits independent acts of negligence or criminal wrongdoing. There is no evidence that Hertz improperly or negligently maintained the rental vehicle prior to the subject accident. (UMF 10.) As there is no evidence of independent acts of negligence or wrongdoing, the Graves amendment bars claims against Hertz for the actions of Friberg.

Hertz has met its burden. The Court grants summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.