Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 1652 (2026)

Owner and renter jointly and severally liable

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Liability. An owner engaged in the business of renting motor vehicles, with or without drivers, who rents a vehicle to another for use on a public way, is jointly and severally liable with the renter for damage caused by the negligence of the renter in operating the vehicle and for any damages caused by the negligence of a person operating the vehicle by or with the permission of the renter.

[PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]

2. Applicability. This section does not apply to a rental as part of a bona fide transaction involving the sale of a motor vehicle.

[PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]

3. Limitation. This section does not give to a passenger in a rented vehicle a right of action against the owner.

[PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]

4. Contributory negligence. This section does not affect contributory negligence as a defense.

[PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1993, c. 683, §A2 (NEW). PL 1993, c. 683, §B5 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2003–2019 · leading case: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy, 2010 ME 44 (Me. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy, 2010 ME 44 (Me. 2010). · cites it 8× “Enforceability of the Indemnification Provisions of the Rental Agreement [¶ 19] Scandent and Koshy contend that the rental agreement’s indemnification provisions are unenforceable because (a) they conflict with Maine’s rental vehicle liability statute, 29-A M.R.S. § 1652, 6 (b)…”

Ashe v. Enter. Rent-A-Car, 2003 ME 147 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “” 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1652(3) (1996). [¶ 10] Ashe contends that the common law rule and the statutory passenger exception were modified when the Legislature enacted mandatory coverage for rental vehicles.”

Jason Puerini v. Jeanne LaPierre, 208 A.3d 1157 (R.I. 2019). “2010) (recognizing that Maine's rental vehicle liability statute, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, § 1652, has been preempted by the Graves Amendment); Meyer v.”

Piche v. Nugent, 436 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D. Me. 2006). “” 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1652; see also Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (“SAFETEA-LU”), Pub.”

Ashe v. Enter. Rent-A-Car (Me. Super. Ct 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 1862 (repealed and replaced by 29-A M.RS.A. § 1652, P.L. 1993, c. 683, § A-2, effective Jan.”

Lo v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, LLC, 721 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D. Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “The occupants of one car sued in state court and claimed that the rental car company was jointly and severally liable under a Maine statute, 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1652. 1 The rental car company ultimately paid those occupants in excess of $ 350,000.”

Robbins v. Ranjini (Me. Super. Ct 2006). “Koshy was not the operator of a vehicle involved in this incident and is not responsible as an employer of the defendant Ranjini, he does have potential liability under 29-A M.R.S.A. §1652(1) as the renter based on the negligence of a person operating the vehicle with h s…”

Pike v. McIntyre (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “In an amended complaint Pike brought an additional claim against Enterprise pursuant to 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1652(1)1 on a theory of vicarious 1 §1652.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 1652(1) — 3 cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy, 2010 ME 44 (Me. 2010). “Enforceability of the Indemnification Provisions of the Rental Agreement [¶ 19] Scandent and Koshy contend that the rental agreement’s indemnification provisions are unenforceable because (a) they conflict with Maine’s rental vehicle liability statute, 29-A M.R.S. § 1652, 6 (b)…”

Robbins v. Ranjini (Me. Super. Ct 2006). “Koshy was not the operator of a vehicle involved in this incident and is not responsible as an employer of the defendant Ranjini, he does have potential liability under 29-A M.R.S.A. §1652(1) as the renter based on the negligence of a person operating the vehicle with h s…”

Pike v. McIntyre (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “In an amended complaint Pike brought an additional claim against Enterprise pursuant to 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1652(1)1 on a theory of vicarious 1 §1652.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 1652(3) — 2 cases

Ashe v. Enter. Rent-A-Car, 2003 ME 147 (Me. 2003). “” 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1652(3) (1996). [¶ 10] Ashe contends that the common law rule and the statutory passenger exception were modified when the Legislature enacted mandatory coverage for rental vehicles.”

Ashe v. Enter. Rent-A-Car (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “§ 1862 (repealed and replaced by 29-A M.RS.A. § 1652, P.L. 1993, c. 683, § A-2, effective Jan.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.