Elaine Messer v. Robert Kinsley et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE

In this seven-count complaint based on a motor vehicle accident on November 6, 2009, Count Seven is directed to the Hertz Corporation and Hertz Rent–A–Car, owners of the motor vehicle operated by Robert Kinsley, an employee of Advanced Auto Body, Inc., who was driving the motor vehicle to his automobile repair shop.

On April 28, 2010 the defendants filed this motion to strike Count Seven on the ground that the facts alleged were insufficient to support a finding of vicarious liability and the count impermissibly imputes the operator's recklessness to the defendants.

I

The defendants argue that 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a), known as the Graves Amendment, precludes vicarious liability for rental companies based solely on ownership of the vehicle.   The plaintiff argues that the Graves Amendment is not applicable in this case because the vehicle was not subject to a lease or rental agreement at the time of the collision.

The Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, states in the relevant part:  “An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles;  and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) ․” Our Supreme Court has recently stated that “the Graves Amendment preempts [§ 14–154a] and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the commerce clause of the United States constitution.”   Rodriguez v. Testa, 296 Conn. 1, 26, 993 A.2d 955 (2010).

II

It is not disputed that the defendants, The Hertz Corporation and Hertz Rent–A–Car, are engaged in the business of renting or leasing vehicles.   Plaintiff has not alleged negligence or criminality on the part of the defendants beyond their vicarious liability of the operator's torts.   It would appear, therefore, that the defendants are in the class of defendants to whom the Graves Amendment applies, except, the plaintiff argues, that since there was no rental or lease agreement between the defendants and the operator of the vehicle at the time of the incident, the amendment does not apply.

The Graves Amendment by its language would seem to apply only to those situations where there is a rental or lease of a motor vehicle because its purpose is to protect the borrowers of renting and leasing automobiles from claims of vicarious liability.   There is no good reason why a leasing company like Hertz should receive the blanket exemption of the Graves Amendment when its motor vehicle is being repaired or otherwise transported.

None of the Superior Court cases cited by plaintiff involves a situation where there was an absence of a lease or rental agreement in operation or where the issue was joined on such absence.

While the language of the motion to strike could have been more specific, it was not necessary to allege nonapplicably of the Graves Amendment.

Motion to strike Count Seven granted.

Wagner, J., JTR

Wagner, Jerry, J.T.R.