The clarification is only included in the rented or leased products portion of the product seller provision. Thus, by way of example, in a situation where a car rental agency has exercised reasonable care with respect to maintaining and inspecting a vehicle, for example, the brakes, the engine, or the tires, and the person who shows up at the desk to rent the vehicle has an impeccable driving record, does not appear unfit to drive, and has a valid driver's license. The renter then takes the car and is subsequently involved in an accident. The product use language in section 103(c)(2) holds that the rental company cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the renter simply because the company owns the product and has given permission for its use. In contrast, if the rental agency rented a car to an obviously intoxicated person and that person was in a subsequent accident, then the rental agency would have been negligent in renting, or in negligently entrusting, the car to the person who was, at the time, obviously intoxicated. As spelled out clearly in the legislative history, 'Such actions would continue to be governed by State law,' and are not subject to H.R. 956.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing liability issues related to rental car agencies during a legislative debate.
Share
More from T. Gorton
I am aware. ARCO, which is well known in Alaska, recently constructed and started a 70 barrel per day Gas-to-Liquids plant in Blaine, Washington, near Bellingham. ARCO did this with its own money and that of Syntroleum. With industry…
The Senator from Nevada is entirely correct. If we can only take a quick vote on it with the Senators on the floor now, we would probably succeed. Unfortunately, we have yet to persuade all of our colleagues of this matter. The question…
I was glad to see this pilot program recommended in the TPA report I have recently received from the BIA. We required this report in last year's appropriations bill. I have also noted that Nambe Pueblo has gone through a long process of…
Initially--that amount was subject to a 0.48 percent across-the-board reduction; consequently, the House-passed funding level is $24.282 million, or $377,000 more than what the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported.





