[newbie12]

She has clear liability. She agreed, after reviewing the request, to rent her car, for a profit, to someone who was a reckless driver and did serious harm to others (and, sadly, himself). I hate the U.S. tort system but some liability in this case is pretty reasonable.

[guard-of-terra]

No there isn't. You neither can nor should screen buyers and renters. This simply isn't your job. And it harms the business the big way. When people rent cars they also rent the risk.

[rayiner]

The system creates liability for owners of instrumentalities that inherently create a risk to society, like cars.

Should to owners of a coal plant be liable if it explodes and injures people living nearby? Even if they weren't the ones who were operating it at the time?

[finneusbarr]

Certainly, if it was their fault; i.e., if the plant was in a state of disrepair. If the coal plant exploded because the current operators acted in a willfully negligent manner, they should completely bear the cost.

[guard-of-terra]

If they lease or sell it, they should not.

[rayiner]

If they sell their ownership interest they clearly don't have liability. If they lease it, they are profiting from the operation of the dangerous instrument, why should they be insulated from the risks of that operation?

Again, realize that the tort system does not create the costs. Operation of dangerous things has inherent costs. Ownership of property implies the right to receive the benefits for that operation, so it should imply the obligation to bear the risks of that operation.

[guard-of-terra]

The risk in this case is destroyed car, but not the health liability. If the car was dangerous, then there should be liability; if it wasn't, there absolutely should not.

[rayiner]

No, the health liability is a risk of car operation. Accidents happen, and they injure people, even in the absence of negligence or poor maintenance. Driving creates a risk of injury to others, inherently.

[Someone]

I do not think it is that clear-cut, even for car rentals. If the car owner knows or should have known that the one renting it was a clear danger, I think he should have some responsibility. I also think law agrees with that. If it does not, why then does one have to show a driver's license to rent a car?

The gray area:

- if the owner could have known of the danger, how much effort do we think he should make to find out what the danger is?

- how high a risk increase can the owner let go? For example, if a 18 year old with a whiskey bottle in hand and a couple of obviously drunk friends wants to rent 'the fastest sports car you have', is it sufficient to check that the guy has a driver's license and does not look drunk or high? Would a check that he is not drunk be sufficient?

[fffggg]

"I do not think it is that clear-cut, even for car rentals"

Well, it is that clear cut. As the article notes there is a law which unambiguously states that car rental agencies are not liable in this scenario: http://gregjohnson89.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/vicarious-liab...

As the article further notes, the only question is whether a loophole in the law's definition may cause Ms. Fong to not qualify as a car rental entity.

[Someone]

I did not click through that law, but only read the (emphasis added) "In any event, she has done her own legal homework and points to a federal law that can shield rental car companies from liability for accidents that happen while someone is renting the car.", and concluded (possibly incorrectly) that that law isn't watertight.

[mattstreet]

I agree, the agency that is supposed to be screening these people is called the DMV.

[rayiner]

The DMV is not liable nor should it be. Why should the public bear the inherent costs of a profitable risk-creating activity that yields private profit?

[tibbon]

What capability did she, or anyone have, to determine that this individual was a reckless driver? Given a lineup of 10 people, can you tell who is a reckless driver in 30 seconds or less without giving them a through skills test and psychological evaluation?