Scott v. Hertz Corp.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Amparan v. Demir (District Court, D. New Mexico 2017)
- Amparan v. Lake Powell Car Rental Cos. (10th Cir. 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal the denial of their motions to file amended complaints to state a cause of action against The Hertz Corporation based on its decision to rent a car to a driver under the age of twenty-five years, contrary to the corporation’s policy establishing twenty-five as the driver’s minimum age. We agree with the reasoning of the Oregon Court of Appeals when it held, “If a 16-year-old can lawfully drive a car, a person may entrust a ear to a driver who is that age or older without being negligent.... Without more, an allegation that a person entrusted a ear to a person who is under 25 cannot state a claim for negligent entrustment.” Mathews v. Federated Svc. Ins. Co., 122 Or.App. 124, 857 P.2d 852, 858 (Or.App. 1993). Therefore, Appellants’ proposed amended complaints did not state a cause of action.
Because the amendment would have been futile, we hold that the trial court did not
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.