Tavares v. Zipcar (Jan. 30, 2026, No. C100576) 2026 WL 249708 (Feb. 2, 2026, No. S280256) 2026 WL 26557
Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was rented remotely through the rental company’s app by plaintiff’s friend. Plaintiff’s friend lost control of the car while driving intoxicated and crashed into a tree, injuring plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the rental car company for negligent entrustment, negligent maintenance, and vicarious liability, alleging the company should have known that the driver was impaired and should not have allowed remote access to its vehicles by impaired drivers. The trial court granted summary judgment for the rental company, concluding that the company owed no duty to assess whether renters appeared impaired at the time of the rental, no duty to equip vehicles with impairment-detection technology, and that the company was immune from vicarious liability under the Graves Amendment, a federal statute that protects rental car companies from state-law vicarious liability for accidents caused by their customers.
Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that imposing a duty on remote rental car companies to assess driver impairment would be inconsistent with Civil Code section 1939.37, which authorizes remote vehicle rentals without in-person interaction. The court added that the negligent maintenance claim failed because it was either derivative of a theory of liability foreclosed by Civil Code section 1939.37 or foreclosed by statutory limits on permissible surveillance technology in rental vehicles under Civil Code section 1939.01 et seq. Finally, the court affirmed that the Graves Amendment bars vicarious liability claims against the company for injuries caused by a permissive user’s negligence.
