Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01856, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01856 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 5-30-24
Case #23CHCV01856, Czarina Claire Barit vs. Enterprise
Rent A Car Company of Los Angeles, et al.
Trial Date: N/A
DEMURRER
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of
Los Angeles, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Demurrer to the Complaint
·
1st Cause of Action for Negligence
RULING: Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
This action arises out of a vehicle collision that
occurred on July 6, 2021. Plaintiff Czarina Claire Barit (Plaintiff) has sued Anusha
Gerard Silva and Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC
(Defendant) for one cause of action for negligence. It is unclear from
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on June 26, 2023, who was driving the vehicle that
caused the collision and what Defendants’ relationship is to each other.
Defendant filed its demurrer on January 18, 2024. No
opposition has been filed.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice: Defendant has
requested that the Court take judicial notice of its most recent Statement of
Information filed with the California Secretary of State. The Court takes
judicial notice of the existence of this document.
ANALYSIS
A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for
which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which
the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311,
318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading
“by raising questions of law.” (Postley
v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a
pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be
liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP
§ 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts
properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law…”
’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152
Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally
construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.
(Picton v. Anderson Union High School
Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)
First Cause of Action for Negligence
Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s cause of action for
negligence on the basis that it does not states facts sufficient to allege a
cause of action against Defendant and on the basis that the complaint is
uncertain. Defendant also demurs on the basis that car rental companies cannot
be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their customers under
federal law.
The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty,
breach, proximate cause, and damages. (See Peredia v. HR Mobile Services,
Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680.)
The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are vague and
uncertain as to what Defendant’s role in the collision even was. Plaintiff may
be alleging that Defendant was the owner of the vehicle that Plaintiff alleges
caused the collision, but that is almost impossible to discern from Plaintiff’s
complaint.
The only substantive factual allegations regarding the
collision that Plaintiff has in her complaint are the following: “On or about
July 6, 2021, at the subject location, the defendants, and each of them, so
negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove, and operated said
defendants' vehicle so as to cause defendants' vehicle to collide with the
plaintiff’s vehicle proximately causing those injuries and damages to the
plaintiff as hereinafter described.” (Comp., ¶ 9.) The rest of Plaintiff’s
allegations are conclusory statements.
Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify which defendant was
driving the vehicle. Plaintiff does not identify Defendant’s role in the
collision. Therefore, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to maintain a
cause of action for negligence against Defendant, and Plaintiff’s complaint is
uncertain.
Defendant also argues that it cannot be held liable for
negligent entrustment. A company engaged in the business of renting and/or
leasing vehicles, such as Defendant, will not be found to have negligently
entrusted its vehicle if it (1) inspected for a valid driver’s license of the
person to whom the vehicle was rented, and (2) did not rent to a customer who
appeared impaired at the time of rental. (Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1998)
105 Cal.App.3d 703, 709; Flores v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2010) 188
Cal.App.4th 1055 [a rental car agency’s duty is limited to requiring rental
agencies to inspect for a driver’s license of the person to whom the vehicle is
to be rented and not entrusting a vehicle to a customer who appears impaired or
otherwise unfit to drive at the time of rental].)
Plaintiff has not alleged that either of those conditions
were present. Therefore, Plaintiff has alleged any kind of negligent
entrustment on the part of Defendant, either.
Finally, Defendant argues that the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C.
§ 30106) would apply here. The Graves Amendment provides that owner of a
vehicle that is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor
vehicles shall not be held liable under the law of any State for any harm to
persons or property that arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the
vehicle during the period of the rental or lease. (49 U.S.C. § 30106(a).) In
another words, a rental car company cannot be held liable for the negligent
acts of its customers while they are renting the vehicle.
However, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint what the
relationship was between the person driving the vehicle and Defendant. If the
person driving the vehicle was Defendant’s customer, then Defendant could not
be held liable, but if the person driving the vehicle was Defendant’s employee,
then there may be cause for liability. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s complaint
suggests that there may have been an employee-employer relationship, but it is
unclear from the rest of the complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint is too uncertain
to determine if the Graves Amendment would apply.
Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint
and Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence is sustained with leave to
amend.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and First
Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend.
Plaintiff is given 20 days leave to amend.
Moving party to give notice to all parties.