Levy v. Daniels' U-Drive Auto Renting Co., Inc.
143 A. 163, 108 Conn. 333, 61 A.L.R. 846 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute imposing liability on a motor vehicle lessor for damages caused by the lessee's operation of the vehicle creates a contractual obligation incorporated into the rental agreement. The law of the state where the contract was made governs this obligation, not the law of the state where the resulting injury occurred.
Facts:
- Daniels' U-Drive Auto Renting Company, Incorporated (Daniels), was a Connecticut-based business.
- In Hartford, Connecticut, Daniels rented an automobile to a man named Sack.
- A Connecticut statute was in effect making any person renting a motor vehicle liable for damage caused by its operation.
- The plaintiff, Levy, was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Sack.
- In Longmeadow, Massachusetts, Sack negligently stopped the car on the highway in bad weather without a working tail light.
- A vehicle driven by Meginn negligently collided with the rear of the rented car.
- Levy was seriously injured as a result of the collision between the two vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- Levy sued Daniels' U-Drive Auto Renting Co. in the Superior Court of Connecticut, a court of first instance.
- Daniels filed a demurrer to the complaint (a motion to dismiss), arguing that Massachusetts law should apply and that under Massachusetts law, there was no cause of action against the rental company.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and entered a judgment in favor of Daniels.
- Levy, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Connecticut statute imposing liability on a car rental company for a renter's negligence create a contractual obligation that applies to an accident occurring in Massachusetts, a state without such a law?
Opinions:
Majority - Wheeler, C. J.
Yes. The Connecticut statute imposes a contractual liability as a term of the rental agreement. The court reasoned that the statute is an exercise of the state's police power intended to protect public safety by incentivizing rental companies to rent only to competent and careful operators. This statutory obligation is automatically incorporated into every rental contract made in Connecticut, making the company's liability a part of the agreement. Therefore, the action arises out of the Connecticut contract, not the Massachusetts tort. Levy, as an injured member of the public, is a third-party beneficiary of this contract and can sue to enforce it under Connecticut law, as the contract was made for the direct benefit of any person who might be injured by the vehicle's operation.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of characterization in conflict of laws, where a court classifies a cause of action as either tort or contract to determine which state's law applies. By characterizing the statutory liability as contractual, the court avoided the traditional tort rule of lex loci delicti, which would have applied Massachusetts law and denied recovery. This decision creatively uses contract principles to uphold the public policy of the forum state and expands the third-party beneficiary doctrine by allowing an unidentified member of the public to enforce a public safety obligation implied into a private contract.
