In California, rental car companies already have a duty to only rent safe vehicles. In the event of a recall, the rental company will receive notice, just like any other owner and is obliged to take care of the problem so that the known defect does not cause injury to an innocent renter.
The fact that the federal government sees a reason to step in argues that, without some sort of legal consequence, rental car companies won’t necessarily do the right thing in keeping people safe.
Juries, on the other hand, are business’ conscience.
The California bill would make rental car companies do what they should have done up to now, i.e., provide their customers with safe vehicles. A vehicle that has been recalled for correction of a safety defect is not a “safe” vehicle until the correction is made. This bill would simply assure that such a vehicle was not put into the hands of a rental car customer until the correction was completed.
It is unbelievable that the rental car companies are opposing this urgently needed legislation. They claim that unrepaired defective vehicles are being rented out “infrequently”. That’s not good enough to guarantee safety to customers. Only 100% compliance with “don’t rent out a recalled vehicle” will do the job. Insurers, who pay the cost when rental car customers are injured due to the companies’ neglect, should be vigorously supporting the California legislation.
This bill DOES make sense. Unfortunately, consumers don’t have the lobbying power afforded the Rental Car Industry. If, as the industry suggests, they are repairing the rental cars at a substantial rate prior to renting them, then they should not oppose regulation that mandates them to do so. As for juries being the business’ conscience….? Well, in our case, the jury award represented 1/4 of ONE day of revenue for the Giant Enterprise. Civil liability has little deterrent effect when most of the claims are settled with confidentiality clauses. This bill is nothing, if not reasonable. Now, if our lawmakers put aside that which is politically expedient and vote on the merits of the bill which will keep their constituents safe, we won’t have other tragic events like that which killed my daughters.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The proposed Senate Bill is just common sense.
In California, rental car companies already have a duty to only rent safe vehicles. In the event of a recall, the rental company will receive notice, just like any other owner and is obliged to take care of the problem so that the known defect does not cause injury to an innocent renter.
The fact that the federal government sees a reason to step in argues that, without some sort of legal consequence, rental car companies won’t necessarily do the right thing in keeping people safe.
Juries, on the other hand, are business’ conscience.
The California bill would make rental car companies do what they should have done up to now, i.e., provide their customers with safe vehicles. A vehicle that has been recalled for correction of a safety defect is not a “safe” vehicle until the correction is made. This bill would simply assure that such a vehicle was not put into the hands of a rental car customer until the correction was completed.
It is unbelievable that the rental car companies are opposing this urgently needed legislation. They claim that unrepaired defective vehicles are being rented out “infrequently”. That’s not good enough to guarantee safety to customers. Only 100% compliance with “don’t rent out a recalled vehicle” will do the job. Insurers, who pay the cost when rental car customers are injured due to the companies’ neglect, should be vigorously supporting the California legislation.
This bill DOES make sense. Unfortunately, consumers don’t have the lobbying power afforded the Rental Car Industry. If, as the industry suggests, they are repairing the rental cars at a substantial rate prior to renting them, then they should not oppose regulation that mandates them to do so. As for juries being the business’ conscience….? Well, in our case, the jury award represented 1/4 of ONE day of revenue for the Giant Enterprise. Civil liability has little deterrent effect when most of the claims are settled with confidentiality clauses. This bill is nothing, if not reasonable. Now, if our lawmakers put aside that which is politically expedient and vote on the merits of the bill which will keep their constituents safe, we won’t have other tragic events like that which killed my daughters.