car rental chicago ohare airport

CONCLUSION

The analysis indicates that in the absence of a specific statutory requirement that the car rental companies extend coverage to its tenants and authorized operator of such a society can permissively that an operator of the responsibility for the defense and compensation for the negligent party, ultimately, the tenant or operator. Thus, in the absence of a statue, if the potential victim of a car accident is to ensure a responsible party against whom the compensation is apparently not a mandatory condition that the primary responsibility for compensation, that the owner of the vehicle as opposed to the negligent parties. Nevertheless, the issue of secondary liability seems to be a continuation of Drama and will no doubt be the subject of ongoing litigation in federal and for the foreseeable future.

Most Popular Articles in Reference
The importance of understanding organizational culture
Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
What factors attract foreign direct investment will be?
Libraries need relationship marketing - marketing concept of mutual interest, ...
How to monitor performance goals: employee reviews are more than criticism
More »

Display

* The authors would like to help and the contribution of Gerald Corallo in the preparation of this article.

"The facts of this hypothetical are loosely based on the Mercury Cas. Co. v. Hertz Corp., 69 Cal. Rptr.2d 9 (Ct. App. 1997).

2Illustrative from this point, the following list of cases are just some of the many who, either through personal lines insurer or the rental company on the concept of secondary liability. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. in San Francisco against workers Auto Ins. Co., 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 725 (Ct. App. 1997); Huset v. Milwaukee Dressed Beef Co., 174 NW2d 740 (Wis. 1970); Insurance Car Rentals, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. car. Ins . Co., 504 NE2d 256 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987).

3See Carter v. Travelers Ins. Co., 495 NYS2d 168 (App. Div. 1985) (parking lot that was permissive user car, so that the related measures to be put automobile manufacturers); Foster v. Floyd, 163 So. 2d 213 (Ala. 1964) (doctrine of imputed negligence can be used to an agency relationship between owner and driver of the vehicle); By Norris v. Pacific. Co., 247 P.2d 1 (Caliber 1952) (son of negligence attributable to the father, the owner of the vehicle when the son of injury caused by negligent use of automobiles). But it would be remiss not to note that some states in fact do not impute liability to an owner of a vehicle by a permissive driver's negligent acts. Illustrate this point is in New York, before 1929, the view that an owner of a motor vehicle, which only allowed to drive his car would not be liable for the negligence of the driver, except in the context of the theory of respondent superior or agency . See Potts v. Pardee, 116 N.E. 78 (N.Y. 1917); Van Blaricom v. Dodgson, 115 N.E. 443 (N.Y. 1917).

"" See Rashtian v. Brac bra, Inc., 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 411 (Ct. App. 1992). See Morris v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 637 NE2d 253 (NY 1994) (noting that under common law, rental car companies have recourse against the tenant compensation for damages).

6As declared by a court of Arizona is an objective of the legislature to "" to protect the population against possible economic difficulties resulting from injuries, death or property damage caused by the group of people who drive leased vehicles whose minimal financial assets in May consist only of the amount necessary to the lease. "Lowry v. Tucson Diesel, Inc., 498 P.2d. 160,162 (Ariz Ct. App. 1972).