In this small claims action where plaintiff seeks to recover for damages sustained by her vehicle due to the negligence of an individual named Horace Davidson while he was driving a rental truck owned by defendant Hertz, defendant Hertz moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it cannot be held liable under the Graves Amendment. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

On August 12, 2016, Horace Davidson rented a vehicle from the defendant. On that same day, Mr. Davidson allegedly had a motor vehicle accident with another vehicle which, in turn, caused damage to plaintiff's vehicle while it was parked on the street. Plaintiff commenced the instant proceeding seeking to recover for the damages sustained by her parked vehicle. Defendant Hertz contends that plaintiff's claim against it is barred by the Graves Amendment. Pursuant to the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a), an owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases a vehicle to another person cannot be held vicariously liable for damages to persons or property that result or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the rental or lease period if the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles and there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner.

In opposition to defendant's motion the pro se plaintiff contends that Hertz is responsible for the damages in the instant matter due to their negligent entrustment of [*2]the subject vehicle to Mr. Davidson. Plaintiff further contends that the Graves Amendment does not exempt defendant from New York State's insurance requirements pursuant to V.T.L. §§ 370(1) and (3) which requires automobile rental companies to provide their renters with primary insurance coverage, including a minimum liability coverage of $10,000 for property damage.

The Court finds that it is clear from a review of case law that Hertz cannot be held vicariously liable for plaintiff's damages. However, Hertz may be liable for plaintiff's damages under a theory of negligent entrustment since said cause of action is based upon alleged affirmative negligence on the part of Hertz, which is separate and distinct from it being vicariously liable for Mr. Davidson's operation of the vehicle.

Moreover, the Court notes that in the case at bar, since the rental truck owned by defendant Hertz allegedly caused damage to the plaintiff's vehicle while it was being operated by Horace Davidson pursuant to a rental agreement, said vehicle was required to be covered by Hertz for a minimum amount of $10,000 for property damage pursuant to V.T.L.§§ 370(1) and (3).^[FN1] The amount of damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff amounts to approximately $5,000.00, which is less than the $10,000 of property damage insurance coverage Hertz, as a rental car company, is statutorily required to maintain on its rental vehicle. Accordingly, as a matter of law, Hertz could be responsible for paying the plaintiff's damages.^[FN2]

The Court finds that the pro se plaintiff has sufficiently raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendant negligently entrusted the vehicle to Mr. Davidson and therefore, defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. The parties are directed to appear for trial on September 8, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.

The above constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

The Court considered the following papers on this motion:

Notice of Motion dated May 1, 2017, Affirmation in Support, Affidavit in Support, Exhibits A-C; Plaintiff's Reply dated May 31, 2017, Exhibits A-C.

AS/mrn