 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hewitt v. Avis Rent-A-Car System10/25/2005
Tara Hewitt (plaintiff below) appeals from the entry of summary judgment in her personal injury action for damages brought against Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., the owner of a stolen automobile which, while operated by a thief during a high-speed chase, collided with the vehicle plaintiff occupied as a passenger. Because we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Avis owed a duty of care to secure access to its vehicle keys and protect the plaintiff against a known risk of theft, we reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
The facts disclose that between November 1999 and May 2000, no fewer than 37 motor vehicles Avis owned or controlled were removed from Avis's downtown rental car lot in Tallahassee, Florida, by Avis employees and "rented" in side deals or otherwise entrusted to acquaintances of the Avis employees. Moreover, by February 2001, managerial employees of the defendant were aware that vehicles had been missing from the lot under circumstances that should have placed them on notice that they had been stolen. Despite the defendant's knowledge, it was alleged that Avis failed to establish and/or enforce sufficient safeguards to prevent the theft, use, entrustment and/or removal of its motor vehicles from the premises. The stolen vehicle at issue in the present case was last seen in Avis's possession on February 23, 2001, and Avis determined it was missing as of February 26, 2001, yet did not report it stolen until April 5, 2001. Two days later it was involved in the accident with appellant, and keys belonging to Avis were found in the vehicle's ignition.
At the time of the accident, Avis's policy was to wait 30 to 45 days before reporting a car stolen, to ensure that a customer legitimately in possession of an Avis vehicle would not be stopped and charged with theft. It was only after the accident that Avis took security measures to reduce the danger of theft. It changed gate locks, parked vans in front of the gates, installed security cameras, and hired a night security guard.
In moving for summary judgment, Avis alleged that it had no relationship with the driver of the stolen vehicle involved in the accident, and, even if Avis delayed in timely reporting the car as stolen, there was no evidence showing that the accident could have been avoided if it had been reported earlier. Avis further asserted that the driver's actions constituted an independent, intervening cause of the injury, thereby relieving it of any liability for the accident. At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the court stated orally, in granting the motion: "I think, as a matter of law, based upon what has been developed, there is no liability on the part of Avis because there is no duty on the part of Avis to prevent their cars from being stolen." Moreover, the "intervening act of criminal conduct on the part of the driver of the car . . . precludes any finding of liability on the part of Avis." The court thereafter entered written summary judgment for the defendant.
A final order granting a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). Appellant urges that the lower court erred in finding that Avis owed her no duty of care to restrict access to its vehicle keys and protect against the known risk of theft, and in finding that Avis's negligence, if it existed, was broken by the intervening act of the theft of its vehicle. In our judgment, the facts in this case are analogous to those in which an owner of a vehicle leaves the keys inside it, resulting in the car's theft and the plaintiff's injury while the thief n
Page 1 2 3 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|