Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | RENT-A-CAR,No. 9696--PR,9696--PR |
| Citation | 105 Ariz. 135,460 P.2d 189 |
| Parties | Marilyn Joan QUINTERO, et al., Appellants, v. CONTINENTALSYSTEM, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Harold Goldman and Charles H. Ripps, Phoenix, for appellants.
Rawlins, Ellis, Burrus & Kiewit, Phoenix, for appellee.
This case is before us on a petition by both parties to review a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing a summary judgment of the Superior Court in favor of defendants. The Court of Appeals' opinion appears in 9 Ariz.App. 488, 453 P.2d 999.
Decision of Court of Appeals vacated. Judgment of Superior Court affirmed.
The allegations of the complaint, interpreted most favorably to the plaintiff, indicate that the defendants were doing business as Continental Rent-a-Car; that on July 16, 1963 they negligently and recklessly rented a car to plaintiff's husband knowing that at that time he was 'unable to properly or legally drive a motor vehicle' because he was intoxicated and his driver's license had been revoked; that 'as the direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in leasing and entrusting said automobile to Walter H. Walk, as aforesaid, The deceased drove said automobile on a public highway * * * in a reckless and negligent manner, causing a collision of said automobile and resulting in his death.' (Italics ours.) Plaintiff, his widow, brought this action on behalf of his children to obtain damages for loss of their father's care, love, earnings, and support. After filing an answer, Continental moved for summary judgment which, in our opinion was properly granted.
The parties have competently and extensively briefed such subjects as negligent entrustment, contributory negligence, and imputed negligence. In our view of the case, these issues need not be considered because the complaint itself, in the language which we have italicized above, clearly sets out facts which compel the conclusion that Walk's negligent and reckless driving was the proximate cause of his death, so that had he survived the accident he could not have maintained an action against Continental for his injuries.
Once we accept this premise, it follows that the complaint must be dismissed, because actions for personal injuries caused by another's negligence do not survive in Arizona. Some states permit survival of such actions, but in this state the legislature has substituted a different remedy--namely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tellez v. Saban
...conduct or Fernandez's lack of a license with the fatal accident. They argue that under Christy and Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 105 Ariz. 135, 460 P.2d 189 (1969), they are not liable to Tellez. 2 Tellez, on the other hand, asserts that the court erred in deciding the q......
-
Huebner v. Deuchle
...its existence is without any reasonable justification. Concededly an action for wrongful death has some derivative characteristics. Quintero, supra. However, since the statute creates a right for those who suffer a pecuniary loss from the decedent's wrongful death, it is apparent that the a......
-
Ogden v. JM Steel Erecting, Inc.
...the automobile was entrusted." (citing Hardwick v. Bublitz, 254 Iowa 1253, 119 N.W.2d 886 (1963))), vacated on other grounds, 105 Ariz. 135, 460 P.2d 189 (1969). Steel contends that the jury's allocation of 0% fault to Lichman destroys the plaintiffs' overarching theory of liability—that is......
-
DeLozier v. Smith
...from his own wrong. Heimke, supra; Tinker v. Hobbs, 80 Ariz. 166, 294 P.2d 659 (1956). In the case of Quintero v. Continental Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 105 Ariz. 135, 460 P.2d 189 (1969), our Supreme Court held that the decedent's contributory negligence barred recovery by his children of da......