 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BANNISTER v. HERTZ CORP.10/31/1994
The Hertz Corporation appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment on liability in favor of Blondell Bannister. We reverse.
Lucretia Meadows rented a van from Hertz in New York City to transport several people to South Carolina for a funeral. All passengers resided in New York. The van was involved in a one car accident in North Carolina while Meadows was driving. Bannister and her daughter were injured, and Bannister's husband was killed.
Bannister brought actions in South Carolina against Hertz on behalf of herself, her husband, and her daughter. She later voluntarily dismissed her
Bannister moved for summary judgment on the ground that New York law governed Hertz's vicarious liability for the negligence of Meadows, Hertz's permissive bailee. Bannister relied on N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 388 (McKinney 1986), a statute that imposes statutory vicarious liability on a vehicle owner for a permissive user's negligence. Hertz agreed Meadows was negligent and careless, but asserted South Carolina, as the forum state, should apply North Carolina law because this is a tort action. Hertz contended it would not be vicariously liable for Meadows's negligence under North Carolina substantive law. The trial court, however, concluded the provisions of § 388 would apply and Hertz was liable for Meadows's negligence.
Under South Carolina conflict of law principles, the substantive law governing a tort action is determined by the state in which the injury occurred. Dawkins v.
State, 306 S.C. 391, 412 S.E.2d 407 (1991); Oshiek v. Oshiek, 244 S.C. 249, 136 S.E.2d 303 (1964); Myrtle Beach Pipeline Corp. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 843 F. Supp. 1027 (D.S.C. 1993). North Carolina substantive law therefore governs this case.
Under North Carolina law, the bailment of equipment, whether gratuitous or for hire, does not render the bailor responsible to third parties for the bailee's negligent use of the equipment where the bailor has relinquished all control of the equipment. DeArmon v. B. Mears Corp., 312 N.C. 749, 325 S.E.2d 223 (N.C. 1985); see Brown v. Ward, 221 N.C. 344, 20 S.E.2d 324, 326 (N.C. 1942) ("It is accepted law that the relationship of lessor and lessee is not that of principal and agent."). Further, "the non-present owner of a vehicle incurs liability under only the family purpose doctrine, negligent entrustment or respondeat superior; . . . permissive alone will not suffice." Kline v. Wheels by Kinney, Inc., 464 F.2d 184, 185-86 (4th Cir. 1972); see id. (New York law was not applicable and New York automobile lessor was not liable for damages caused by lessee in a North Carolina collision, even though automobile was leased, licensed, and registered in New York).
We therefore conclude the trial court erred in applying New York law and reverse the decision of that court.
Reversed.
CURETON and CONNOR, JJ., concur.
Page 1 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|