New Jersey car dealership can't be held financially liable for injuries woman suffered when an unlicensed driver in one of its loaners plowed into her in Downtown Crossing, court rules

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that car dealerships that loan out cars to customers awaiting repairs to their own vehicles are in the rental business, and that means they are covered by a federal law that prohibits their financial liability for any problems caused by the cars' drivers - even if they are unlicensed and in a car that wasn't supposed to be taken out of state.

The ruling means that Maria Blanca Elena Garcia, a visiting Spanish woman who suffered a fractured spine and pelvis and pelvic hemorrhaging when Shanitqua Steele ran a red light and slammed into her and other pedestrians at School and Washington streets downtown on Aug. 18, 2016 cannot collect any money from the New Jersey dealership that had given Steele's then husband a loaner car.

This is because, as a rental business, the New Jersey Mercedes dealership that loaned a car to Kolawole Oke is subject to a 2005 federal law that prohibits financial actions against rental-car companies for the actions of their rental customers, the court said, adding that even if the dealership failed to verify that Oke himself had a valid license or to impress on Oke the need not to let an "incompetent" person take the wheel:

[No] rational view of the record supports a finding that the failure to verify Oke's driver's license caused Steele to drive the courtesy vehicle, resulting in the plaintiffs' injuries.

The court said loaner cars are really rentals, even if no money is exchanged, because money is not the only way to establish a rental transaction occurred, specifically, that car dealerships do accept a form of payment for letting customers jump into dealer cars - the anticipation of payment for the repair work for which the customers brought in their cars.

However, the court also overturned a Suffolk Superior Court judge's ruling that the woman could not sue Oke, whom the court said disregarded his loaner agreement not to travel more than 100 miles from the dealership and not let anybody else drive the car.

The court said that Garcia could make a case for "negligent entrustment" against him because he knew Steele did not have a license when he parked at the crowded intersection so he could go speak to his lawyer about something - and left the car running, with Steele in the passenger seat, effectively giving her permission to drive the car in his absence.

A BTD parking officer told Steele to move the car, she slid over to the driver's side and inadvertently took the car out of park, making it roll through the intersection just as Garcia and other pedestrians were walking through the crosswalk with a green light.

While in Boston, he left the vehicle illegally parked with the key in the ignition and the engine running as he conducted an errand; his then-wife, who did not have a driver's license and was not an authorized driver under the courtesy vehicle agreements, remained in the vehicle. When a parking officer required that the vehicle be moved, the wife moved into the driver's seat and pushed a button. The vehicle rolled forward through a red light and struck one of the plaintiffs, causing serious injuries. ...

The record shows that Oke left the courtesy vehicle running with the key in the ignition while it was illegally parked; he attended to his errand while Steele remained in the vehicle. This conduct, a rational finder of fact could reasonably conclude, constituted implicit permission or knowing consent for Steele to move the illegally parked vehicle if needed.