MICHAEL BECHINA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Bechinas appealed a summary judgment in favor of Enterprise Leasing Company, which leased a vehicle to a third party who injured them. Enterprise invoked the federal Graves Amendment as a complete bar to vicarious liability. The court affirmed, holding that the Graves Amendment preempted Florida's vicarious liability provisions and was constitutionally sound under the Commerce Clause.
The Graves Amendment preempts Florida's vicarious liability statutes and common law, abrogating Enterprise's vicarious liability for the injuries caused by the third-party lessee. The Graves Amendment is a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause because motor vehicle leasing transactions substantially affect interstate commerce.
[1] The Graves Amendment preempts state laws that impose vicarious liability on motor vehicle lessors for the negligence of their lessees.
[2] Motor vehicle leasing transactions substantially affect interstate commerce, providing a constitutional basis for the Graves Amendment under the Commerce Clause.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Graves Amendment abrogated Enterprise's vicarious liability, and the final summary judgment must be affirmed.”
Establishes the core holding that the Graves Amendment completely eliminates the lessor's vicarious liability under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEnterprise Leasing Company owned and leased a motor vehicle to a non-party third party. That third party was involved in a collision that injured the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106) cases and more on FLexlaw
SALTER, J.
The Bechinas appeal a final summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Enterprise Leasing Company. Enterprise owned and leased a motor vehicle to a non-party, who in turn injured the Bechinas in a collision. The Bechinas included Enterprise as a vicariously liable defendant in their lawsuit for damages for their injuries, and Enterprise successfully raised the defense of the federal “Graves Amendment” 1 as a complete bar to the Bechinas’ claim.
On appeal, the Bechinas raise two issues. First, they assert that the trial court misinterpreted a provision of the Graves Amendment that limits the preemptive reach of the statute and preserves certain vicarious liability provisions under preexisting Florida statutory and common law. Second, they assert that the Graves Amendment was unconstitutional. We disagree as to each of these arguments and affirm.
This Court recently interpreted and applied the Graves Amendment in a similar case, Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2389 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct.3, 2007).2 In Kumarsingh, we concurred with the thorough analysis of the issue in Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 821 (M.D.Fla.2007), and we upheld the preemptive language of the Graves Amendment as applied to subparagraph 324.021(9)(b)(2) of the Florida Statutes (2005).3 Applying that analysis here, the Graves Amendment abrogated Enterprise’s vicarious liability, and the final summary judgment must be affirmed.
The Bechinas urge us to follow other reported cases that have concluded that the Graves Amendment is “outside of the Congressional powers created by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.” Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc. v. Huchon, 2007 WL 2875388 at *6 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 7, 2007).4 See Graham v. Dunkley, 13 Misc.3d 790, 827 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2006); Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. v. Drouin, 521 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (S.D.Fla. 2007). We decline to follow those rulings, holding instead that motor vehicle leasing transactions unquestionably affect the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and intrastate activities substantially related to interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995); Garcia, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 834-37. Though mindful of the interests of Florida citizens in an accident that in this case occurred in Florida, we may not strike a Congressional enactment for those local interests. Neither the trial court nor this Court has been provided “a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds,”5 and we must therefore apply the Graves Amendment as duly enacted.
Affirmed.
. 49 U.S.C. § 30106, (enacted August 10, 2005).
. The case is presently pending here on motions for rehearing or clarification, rehearing en banc, and certification to the Florida Supreme Court.
. The trial court in Kumarsingh held that the $10,000 financial responsibility requirement imposed by subsection 324.021(7), Florida Statutes (2005), survived as a cap on the rental car company’s vicarious liability, and that determination was not cross-appealed. In the Bechinas’ case, however, the trial court granted summary judgment against the Be-chinas as to any vicarious liability, whether under subsection 324.021(7), subparagraph 324.02 l(9)(b)(2), or otherwise.
.The irreconcilable conflict between Huchon and Garcia appears to be headed for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and perhaps beyond.
. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vargas v. Enter. Leasing Co., 993 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…nic Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485-86, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996). . See St. Onge v. White, 988 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Kumarsingh v. PV Holding [*632] Corp., 983 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Bechina v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 972 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); see also Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc., 540 F. 3d 1242 (11th Cir.2008); Dupuis v. Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 980 (M.D.Fla.2007). It is especially surprising to me that the federal appellate court deci…1 / 2
-
West v. Enter. Leasing Co., 997 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…asing Co., 993 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Lucas v. Williams, 984 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp., 983 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 984 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2008) (table); Bechina v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 972 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). In brief, with respect to the preemptive scope of the statute, we agree with Garcia that “[t]he Graves Amendment takes aim at precisely” lawsuits of the type contemplated by section 324.021(9)(b)(2) — that is, “those imposing [v…
-
Karling v. Budget Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 2 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ermediate appellate courts that have ad [*356] dressed this issue have now reached the same conclusion. See Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp., 983 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), rev. denied, 984 So. 2d 519 (Fla.2008); Bechina v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 972 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); St. Onge v. White, 988 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Lucas v. Williams, 984 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 993 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm the final summa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1995)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2000)
- Deopersad Kumarsingh and Rosalie Kumarsingh v. PV Holding Corp. & Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 983 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Garcia Ex Rel. Estate of Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 821 (M.D. Fla. 2007)
- Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. v. Huchon, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2007)
- Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. v. Drouin, 521 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2007)