Monday, February 2, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Says Remote Rental Car Company Is Not Liable for Member’s Drunken Collision
Opinion Says Company That Allows Clients to Swipe Card to Access Cars Owes No Duty to Inquire as to Whether Renters Are Impaired Before They Drive
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A company that offers its clients remote access to a fleet of rental cars by making an online reservation and waiving a membership card over a reader attached to the automobile is not liable for injuries caused by the drunken operation of one of its vehicles, the Third District Court of Appeal held Friday, finding that the firm had no duty to inquire as to whether a potential driver appeared intoxicated or to install a breathalyzer or similar device to ensure sober driving.
Friday’s opinion, authored by Justice Peter A. Krause, acknowledges case law suggesting that a rental car company may be liable for renting a vehicle to a person who appears, when checking out the car, to be intoxicated under a negligent entrustment theory of liability but declines to impose a duty to investigate possible impairment on companies offering remote access. Krause said: “Notably,…these cases did not hold that the mere act of renting a vehicle gives rise to a duty to investigate whether a customer appears intoxicated or impaired at the time of the rental. Instead, they were based on the investigatory duties imposed on rental car companies under the Vehicle Code, and the courts were careful to note that ‘any expansion of the duty of investigation imposed on rental car agencies is a matter for legislative, not judicial, action.’ ”
One such “duty to investigate” is rooted in Vehicle Code §14608, which requires companies offering cars for rent to confirm that the driver is licensed and without certain physical defects that would impair the ability to operate a motor vehicle. In 2016, however, the Legislature enacted Civil Code §1939.37, which clarifies:
“A rental company is not subject to the requirements of Section 14608 of the Vehicle Code if the rental is subject to the terms of a membership agreement that allows the renter to gain physical access to a vehicle without a key through use of a code, key card, or by other means that allow the vehicle to be accessed at a remote location….”
Traffic Collision
The question arose after Mauricio Tavares filed a complaint against Zipcar Inc. and its affiliate PV Holdings Corporation, among others, in July 2021, relating to a traffic collision that left the plaintiff paralyzed below the waist. In the operative complaint, Tavares alleged that Zipcar negligently entrusted a vehicle to Mohammed Ismail, who had been drinking at a college party and, at some point in the evening, used his phone to reserve a car.
Tavares also asserted a claim for negligent maintenance, arguing that the defendants modified vehicles to allow for remote access without including any method for ensuring that the cars would not be driven by impaired operators.
After swiping his membership card around midnight on March 31, 2020, Ismail accessed the car and crashed it into a tree. Tavares was a passenger at the time of the collision.
In October 2023, Zipcar and PV Holdings moved for summary judgment, arguing that remote rental car companies have no duty to assess renters for potential impairment at the time they take custody. Yolo Superior Court Judge David W. Rosenberg agreed with the defendants, and judgment was entered on Jan. 5, 2024.
Friday’s opinion, joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Harry E. Hull Jr. and Justice Stacy E. Boulware Eurie, affirms the judgment. Ismail was convicted of a felony violation of causing injuries while driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle Code §23153(a).
Duty of Care
Krause acknowledged that Civil Code §1714 “establishes the default rule that all persons have a duty to take reasonable care…to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of injury to others,” but he opined that the “broad rule” is “not without limits” and that “[g]enerally, a defendant cannot be held liable in negligence for harms it did not cause unless there are special circumstances…that [create] an affirmative duty to protect….”
Surveying case law, he said that a “rental car company may be held liable for negligently entrusting a vehicle to a customer” if the defendant knew, or should have known, that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle, but he rejected Tavares’ characterization that this jurisprudence calls for imposing a duty on the companies to investigate whether a client is impaired. The jurist commented:
“[B]ecause every rental car historically was rented ‘at the counter,’ the process afforded car rental employees an ‘opportunity to observe’ whether a prospective driver appeared impaired….Thus, this is the context in which courts have found that rental car companies can be held liable for negligently entrusting a vehicle to a customer who ‘appears’ to be intoxicated….In other words, traditional rental car companies can be charged with constructive knowledge that the customer was intoxicated…if the customer displayed obvious signs of…impairment at the time of the rental.”
However, the jurist reasoned:
“Tavares relies on these cases for the principle that rental car companies have a legal duty not to rent a car to someone who ‘appears’ intoxicated or impaired at the time of the rental. From this, Tavares infers that all rental car companies—including remote rental car companies—have a duty to investigate whether a prospective renter appears impaired at the time of rental. This argument sweeps too broadly.”
Pointing to the Legislature’s adoption of §1939.37 in 2016 to address the growing industry of remote rental car options, he remarked:
“The legislative history specifically mentions Zipcar as an example of the type of ‘car sharing model’ of business that the legislation was intended to authorize….Thus,…the Legislature expressly authorized remote rental car companies to rent vehicles to customers without the requirement of an in-person interaction with an employee. It necessarily follows, in our view, that by enacting Civil Code section 1939.37, the Legislature also intended to exempt remote rental car companies from any duty to assess whether the renter ‘appears’ impaired….”
Saying that “it is up to the Legislature to clarify the statute” if that interpretation is “not what was intended,” he concluded that “we find the cases relied upon by Tavares to be distinguishable and conclude that the trial court correctly held that Zipcar has no such duty.”
Addressing the negligent maintenance claim, he wrote:
“To the extent the claim is based on Zipcar’s alleged failure to equip its vehicles with technology to detect whether a driver is intoxicated, we agree with Zipcar that it had no such duty….[W]hen enacting the ‘rental passenger vehicle transaction’ guidelines…, the Legislature carefully defined the circumstances in which…surveillance technology may be employed in rental vehicles, none of which include monitoring for driver intoxication or impairment.”
The case is Tavares v. Zipcar Inc., 2026 S.O.S. 286.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company