SELENE SEDENO VS. TAMARA JONES

Case Number: YC065589    Hearing Date: August 01, 2014    Dept: 91

The Motion by Defendants, DTG Operations and Rental Car Finance Corp for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, filed on 5/19/14 is DENIED. Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that they are entitled to judgment based on the material facts proffered, many of which are unsupported by competent evidence. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 437c(p)(2).

The court sustains Plaintiff’s objections to the Amar Tankha declaration on grounds of hearsay, speculation, lacks foundation and persona l knowledge. Objection to the police report is sustained on grounds of hearsay. The additional evidence submitted by Defendants with the Reply brief is not considered as all supporting papers are required to be submitted with the moving papers. San Diego Water Craft v. Wells Fargo 102 Cal. App. 4th 308, 313 (2002).

Defendants have not established that they are not liable under Veh Code § 17150. Defendants claim that they did not consent to the driver’s use of the car, purportedly not Defendant Tamara Jones. This is not established by the facts. Defendants have not proffered competent evidence that someone other than Jones was driving the car. See Facts 10, 15, 16, and 17 and evidence cited therein.

Defendants have not established that Plaintiffs’ dismissal of Defendant Jones extinguishes Defendants’ liability as an owner. As owner of the vehicle, Defendants’ liability is limited by statute to $15,000 for personal injury and $5,000 for property damage. However, Defendants’ case authority does not support the contention that Defendants’ liability is extinguished once Plaintiff dismisses Jones. The case does say that payment by one joint tortfeasor reduces the other’s liability and operates to offset liability, not extinguish it. Fenley v. Kristoffersen, 94 Cal. App. 3d 139, 141 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1979). All that Defendants established is that Defendant Jones was dismissed. UF 6.

Defendants have not established with competent evidence that they complied with the requirements of Vehicle Code § 14604 and 14608 applicable to renters. Under § 14604, Defendant is obligated to take reasonable efforts to determine that a driver has a valid license by complying with Sections 14608 and 14609.

Section 14608 requires the renter to inspect the driver’s license and compare the driver’s signature or photograph of the person presenting it. Cal Veh Code § 14608. Defendants have not proffered competent evidence to support that the rental agent actually inspected Jones’ license or compared the signature or photograph. The Tankha decl on which Defendant relies is unsupported by the evidence. Facts 18 and 19 are not proved by competent evidence. Tankha relies on the rental contract and vehicle inventory, which are silent on the issue of signature and photograph comparisons.

Section 14609 requires the renter to keep a record of the person’s driver’s license number among other things. This is established by Fact 21 which is undisputed, however, Defendants are still required to comply with § 14608, which is not established.

Defendants have not established that they were not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. This argument is based on Defendants’ contention that they did not expressly or impliedly allow the driver to operate the vehicle, and further that Defendants complied with their duties under Section 14608. Neither fact was established by competent evidence as discussed previously.

Plaintiffs’ negligence per se argument remains viable as Defendants have not established that they fully complied with Veh Code section 14608 and satisfied their statutory duties. Negligence per se requires violation of a statutory duty, which Defendant has not negated. Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center, 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 1285 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2006).

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x