Scott v. Hertz Corp., 722 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Scott v. Hertz Corp., 722 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Amparan v. Demir (nmd, 2017-02-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited "see" Amparan v. Demir (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.N.M. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Scott v. Hertz Corp., 722 So.2d 231 (Fla. Dist.
Elizabeth SCOTT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter Scott, a minor, deceased Linda Hanson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Aaron Ebbert, a minor, deceased Edward Smith and Joan Smith, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of James Smith, a minor
v.
The HERTZ CORPORATION
No. 98-00464.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov 18, 1998.
722 So. 2d 231
Lawrence B. Friedman and Steven H. Os-ber of The Friedman Law Firm, P.A., Boca Raton, for Appellants., Gerald W. Pierce of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appel-lee.
Blue, Fulmer, Whatley.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal the denial of their motions to file amended complaints to state a cause of action against The Hertz Corporation based on its decision to rent a car to a driver under the age of twenty-five years, contrary to the corporation’s policy establishing twenty-five as the driver’s minimum age. We agree with the reasoning of the Oregon Court of Appeals when it held, “If a 16-year-old can lawfully drive a car, a person may entrust a ear to a driver who is that age or older without being negligent.... Without more, an allegation that a person entrusted a ear to a person who is under 25 cannot state a claim for negligent entrustment.” Mathews v. Federated Svc. Ins. Co., 122 Or.App. 124, 857 P.2d 852, 858 (Or.App.1993). Therefore, Appellants’ proposed amended complaints did not state a cause of action.

Because the amendment would have been futile, we hold that the trial court did not[*232] abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.