St. Louis v. Hartley's Oldsmobile-GMC, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1990
• Docket Number: INC,OLDSMOBILE-GM
• Citation: 570 A.2d 1213
• Parties: Judith A. ST. LOUIS v. HARTLEY'S
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 1213

570 A.2d 1213

Judith A. ST. LOUIS v. HARTLEY'S OLDSMOBILE-GMC, INC.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Jan. 31, 1990.

Decided Feb. 28, 1990.

Marvin Glazier (orally), Vafiades, Brountas & Kominsky, Bangor, for plaintiff.

Paul W. Chaiken (orally), Curtis E. Kimball, Rudman & Winchell, Bangor, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, HORNBY and COLLINS, JJ.

COLLINS, Justice.

Plaintiff Judith A. St. Louis appeals from a summary judgment that the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Alexander, J.) entered in favor of defendant Hartley's Oldsmobile-GMC, Inc. ("Hartley") upon determining that Hartley was not jointly and severally liable for injuries St. Louis received in a motor vehicle accident. The accident was caused by the negligence of co-defendant Gregory J. Sands, one of Hartley's customers, who was driving a "loaner" automobile loaned to Sands by Hartley at the time of the accident. We find no error and we affirm.

I.

The facts are undisputed. This case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on November 29, 1985, when a vehicle operated by Sands and owned by Hartley collided with a vehicle operated by St. Louis. The automobile operated by Sands was a "loaner" vehicle with "loaner plates," as provided for by 29 M.R.S.A. § 361 (1978 & Supp.1989), that Sands had obtained from Hartley six days earlier while Sands' personal vehicle was awaiting parts for repair by Hartley. Other than requiring him to pay for any damage to the vehicle that might occur while it was in Sands' care, Hartley did not charge Sands for the use of the loaner vehicle.

St. Louis brought this negligence action against both Sands and Hartley. In Count II of her complaint, the only count brought against Hartley, St. Louis alleges that Hartley negligently "rented, loaned, or otherwise gave a motor vehicle" to Sands, and asserts that Hartley shares responsibility for the accident. Hartley then moved for summary judgment on Count II. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in Hartley's favor, holding first that there was no support for St. Louis's claim of negligent entrustment, and second that Hartley could not be held jointly and severally liable under 29 M.R.S.A. § 1862 (1978) because Hartley did not "rent" Sands the loaner automobile within the statutory meaning of the word "rental" because there was no consideration for the loan of the vehicle.

After a jury-waived trial, Sands was found to have negligently caused the accident, and judgment was entered against him in the amount of $375,000.

On appeal, St. Louis raises the issue of Hartley's joint and several liability, but fails to appeal the summary judgment court's finding of no evidence of negligent entrustment.

II.

St. Louis first contends that Hartley must be held jointly and severally liable for Sands' conduct under 29 M.R.S.A. § 1862. On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we view evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment has been granted and review the trial court's conclusions for errors of law. Philbrook v. Gates Formed-Fibre Products, Inc., 536 A.2d 1118 (Me.1988). In the case at hand, no significant facts are in dispute, and whether the money delivered to Hartley was in consideration of the loan of the loaner automobile is ultimately a question of law, not of fact. Therefore, we only address whether the Superior Court properly applied the law.

Section 1862 provides in pertinent part:

The owner of a motor vehicle engaged in the business of renting motor vehicles, with or without drivers, who rents any such vehicle, with or without a driver, to another, otherwise than as a part of a bonafide transaction involving the sale of such motor vehicle, permitting the renter to operate the vehicle upon the public ways, shall be jointly and severally liable with the renter for any damages caused by the negligence of the latter in operating the vehicle....

In construing section 1982, we give the term "rental" its everyday meaning: "a contract whereby one gives temporary possession and control of the subject property to another for consideration." Lewiston Daily Sun v. Hanover Insurance Company, 407 A.2d 288, 293 (Me.1979). St. Louis contends that the arrangement between Hartley and Sands was a "rental" under the everyday definition articulated in Lewiston Daily Sun. The thrust of St. Louis' argument is that Sands and Hartley's agreement was a single contract in which the money that Sands gave to Hartley constituted consideration for both the repair of Sands' vehicle and the temporary loan of the loaner automobile. St. Louis argues that "[t]he temporary control of the [loaner] car was an integral part of the contract." Implicitly, St. Louis contends that no separate compensation, distinct from the money delivered to Hartley for repair of Sands' disabled automobile, was required to qualify the temporary loan agreement as a "rental."

We find St. Louis' argument unpersuasive. St. Louis admits that the car was registered as a "loaner vehicle" with "loaner plates." She does not contend that Sands paid anything extra for the use of the loaner car. Nor does she contend that Hartley's repair of Sands' regular car alone would have been inadequate consideration for the amount of money paid to Hartley by Sands.

Moreover, Hartley was not "engaged in the business of renting motor...