California Legal Brief

The Rule of Tavares v. Zipcar is that remote rental car companies exempt under Civil Code section 1939.37 owe no duty to assess whether renters appear impaired at the time of rental or to equip vehicles with impairment detection technology, under circumstances where the rental is conducted through a membership agreement allowing remote vehicle access without in-person employee interaction.

Appeal from judgment after granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication in Superior Court, Yolo County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Mauricio Tavares — the injured passenger in a remote rental car crash involving an intoxicated driver.

Defendants Respondents were Zipcar, Inc. and PV Holdings Corporation — the membership-based remote rental car service and nominee title holder that provided vehicles accessible by card reader without in-person rental transactions.

The suit sounded in negligent entrustment and negligent maintenance. Plaintiff also sought to hold defendants vicariously liable as vehicle owner for the permissive user's negligence.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Mohammed Ismail, a Zipcar member, consumed alcohol at a party, then used the Zipcar app to reserve a vehicle for one hour beginning at midnight. With no in-person contact with Zipcar employees, Ismail accessed the vehicle using his membership card on a card reader, drove with Tavares and another friend as passengers, and crashed into a tree within 10 minutes. Ismail's blood alcohol measured .095-.099% approximately an hour after the crash. Tavares suffered paraplegic injuries.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication, ruling that Zipcar had no duty to inquire whether Ismail appeared impaired at the time of rental, no duty to equip vehicles with impairment detection devices, and was protected from vicarious liability by the federal Graves Amendment.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether remote rental car companies have a duty to assess whether renters appear impaired at the time of rental; 2. Whether remote rental car companies have a duty to equip vehicles with technology to detect driver intoxication; 3. Whether the federal Graves Amendment preempts vicarious liability claims against rental car companies based solely on vehicle ownership.

The Appellate Court held that Civil Code section 1939.37, which exempts remote rental car companies from Vehicle Code section 14608's in-person driver's license inspection requirements, necessarily exempts them from any duty to assess whether renters "appear" impaired at rental, since such assessment requires in-person observation that the statute was designed to eliminate. The court further held that no duty exists to equip vehicles with impairment detection technology, and that the Graves Amendment preempts vicarious liability claims based solely on vehicle ownership.

The case is inapplicable when the rental car company conducts traditional in-person rentals subject to Vehicle Code section 14608 inspection requirements, when the rental company has actual knowledge of driver impairment, or when the rental does not qualify for Civil Code section 1939.37's remote rental exemption.

The case leaves open whether other theories of liability against remote rental companies might exist beyond negligent entrustment and negligent maintenance, whether legislative action could impose additional duties on remote rental companies, and the precise scope of what constitutes a qualifying "membership agreement" under Civil Code section 1939.37.