It seems less perverse when you think of tort liability as assignment of the costs of risk, rather than punishment for negligent behavior. When someone drives a car, this creates risk. Who should bear this risk? Somebody has to, the only thing the tort system decides is who. If you don't assign the risk to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the operator or the general public. Assigning the risk to the public essentially socialized the costs of this activity (which generates private benefits), so as a practical matter the tort system allocates the risk to the owner and operator. Under this system the operator has a responsibility to use the dangerous instrument carefully, while the owner has the responsibility to carefully choose who operates the dangerous instrument.
This doesn't seem any less perverse to me. Shifting responsibility to the operator makes sense for injury resulting from operation. Shifting responsibility to the owner only makes sense for injury resulting from the ownership (improper device maintenance, etc).
If you can hold the owner of a car liable for a crash then what stops you from holding the creator of a car liable for a crash? Why not go after Toyota? By this line of reasoning Toyota is just as culpable as Ms. Fong.
Indeed, some tort actions have gone beyond owners and even pursued manufactures -- particularly gun manufactures.
The idea that an object owner or object creator might be liable for the actions of an object user is unreasonable and perverse. It has a chilling effect on innovation and forces small businesses (who can't afford to lobby regulatory protections such as the Graves amendment) out of the market.
If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rentals from shielding themselves from the inherent risks created by their activity by having judgment-proof operators operate that risk-creating business?
The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners and operators of dangerous instrumentalities are much more appropriate to bear that price than injured third parties. Owners are much more likely to be able to bear the cost than operators. If you shield owners, than you are practically shifting the burden to the public. I.e. socializing the costs. Yes it's great for small businesses to shift the costs of their profit-making activity to the public.
Ms. Fong's ownership of the car gives her the right to profit by renting it. It is fair to link that right with the obligation for risks created by that profit-making activity.
Judgement-proof operators? Nowhere was it suggested that operators ought be judgement-proof. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite.
The issue is exactly one of lobbying. As the article notes, the auto insurance industry has successfully lobbied to pass the Graves Amendment, which nullifies vicarious liability for auto rental. The article mentions this, and you can read more here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VI/A/301/I/30106
Car rental owners are shielded by this lobbied-for legislation. The only question is whether Ms. Fong will qualify as a rental agency for the purposes of this law.
This is precisely a case where an industry has lobbied for an exemption which may exclude others from competing in said industry. It is a textbook example of regulation preventing disruption of an established industry.
Judgment-proof in the sense that the operator has no assets with which to pay the judgment.
The operator here is liable. But if the operator has insufficient assets to satisfy the damages, the owner is a more sensible person to bear the costs of the accident than the injured party.
When a joint enterprise accidentally injures a third party, generally all possible outcomes are fundamentally unjust. That's what makes tort law interesting.
It appears you're suggesting a structure of a business, where the owner isn't leasing to an unrelated party. An employer is liable for the actions of his employees (even non-employee employees) through entirely separate and much more appropriate channels.
By "judgement-proof" I believe he meant that the operators probably don't have much money and therefore you could win a case against them, but you could not collect. This is contrasted with the owners of the hypothetical car rental firm that would have assets that could be taken.
Most car owners also don't have a few million dollars in cash lying around, so they are equally "judgement proof". The way we have solved that problem is to legally require driver's insurance. It seems to me that that's a sufficient solution: as long as drivers are required to have insurance, there should be no problem with only holding drivers (not car owners) liable?
So what if ms fong dies next next? Is the manufacturer now responsible since they are the next step up in the ladder of profiters of the car?
You could assign the consequences of blame arbitrarily like that but it would have negative consequences on society. For example people would be less likely to do anything since association can now always lead to 100% blame. It's like a mobster who tries to get you to repay a relative's debts. That never makes sense and neither does this.
Presuming Ms. Fong was driving, and her death was caused by operator error, she would likely be to blame. If her death is caused by a mechanical issue - yes, the manufacturer could be held liable.
If the manufacturer is at fault, then the manufacturer is responsible. If Ms. Fong was at fault, then she would be responsible.
However the problem here is that the renter was at fault, but he/she is dead, so now they're trying to pin the responsibility on the closest related entity (even though with NO fault by Ms. Fong) that can also pay the costs.
If the person who died (or his/her family) has no claims to compensation from Ms. Fong, then why would the people he/she injured have any claims from her?
...and if the manufacturer goes out of business, are the manufacturers of the parts in the car liable? And after that, the suppliers of the raw materials in those parts?
If owners are not liable, what stops the owners of inherently dangerous businesses like car rental
How exactly is car rental an "inherently dangerous business," in the absence of a legion of berserk trial lawyers doing everything in their power to make it so?
Seems like a near-perfect illustration of begging the question.
f you don't assign the risk to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the operator or the general public.
Except that in this case there's another party: RelayRides, the rental management company. I think their own actions indicate an awareness that they will have to foot the bill for this... not just because Ms. Fong-Jones could probably recover her own costs, if any, in court, but also because the survival of their business depends on it.
> while the owner has the responsibility to carefully choose who operates the dangerous instrument.
Anyone with a driver's license and enough money can walk into a car dealership and be "operating the dangerous instrument" an hour later. In this case would the car dealership be liable for a crash? Should they be vetting who they sell cars to? Or what about the state that issued the driver's license? After all, it's their actual job to vet drivers. By your logic the DMV should be liable for every accident caused by a driver with a valid license.
Why wouldn't it clearly be the operator in that case then? Its impossible for even the most responsible of people to foresee what will happen for someone driving their car.
