U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE VI— MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS › Part PART A— GENERAL › Chapter CHAPTER 301— MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL

49 U.S.C. § 30106

Rented or leased motor vehicle safety and responsibility

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if—(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner).(b)Financial Responsibility Laws.—Nothing in this section supersedes the law of any State or political subdivision thereof—(1) imposing financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle; or(2) imposing liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law.(c)Applicability and Effective Date.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this section shall apply with respect to any action commenced on or after the date of enactment of this section without regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the action, or the conduct that caused the harm, occurred before such date of enactment.(d)Definitions.—In this section, the following definitions apply:(1)Affiliate.—The term “affiliate” means a person other than the owner that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the owner. In the preceding sentence, the term “control” means the power to direct the management and policies of a person whether through ownership of voting securities or otherwise.(2)Owner.—The term “owner” means a person who is—(A) a record or beneficial owner, holder of title, lessor, or lessee of a motor vehicle;(B) entitled to the use and possession of a motor vehicle subject to a security interest in another person; or(C) a lessor, lessee, or a bailee of a motor vehicle, in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, having the use or possession thereof, under a lease, bailment, or otherwise.(3)Person.—The term “person” means any individual, corporation, company, limited liability company, trust, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity.(Added Pub. L. 109–59, title X, § 10208(a), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1935.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The date of enactment of this section, referred to in subsec. (c), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 109–59, which was approved Aug. 10, 2005.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 287 cases (112 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Rodriguez v. Testa, 993 A.2d 955 (Conn. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rodriguez v. Testa, 993 A.2d 955 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 23× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether 49 U.S.C. § 30106 , 1 also known as the Graves *4 Amendment, 2 preempts state law imposing vicarious liability on the lessor of an uninsured motor vehicle for damages caused by the negligent acts of the lessee or an agent thereof.”
Graham v. Dunkley, 13 Misc. 3d 790 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006). · cites it 23× “makes a preanswer motion for dismissal of plaintiffs tort action and all cross claims on the ground that plaintiff fails to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) because article VI (2) of the United States Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) and the Safe, Accountable,…”
Edward Martin v. Gregory Powers, 505 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2016). · cites it 6× “On August 23, 2013, Enterprise filed an answer, asserting that, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30106 , it was not vicariously liable for any harm resulting from the use, operation, or possession of any of its rental vehicles, and requested the complaint to be dismissed with prejudice.”
Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. v. Huchon, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2007). · cites it 23× “The United States of America subsequently intervened in this action and filed a Memorandum in Support of the Constitutionality of 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (DE # 87). UPON CONSIDERATION of the motions and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court enters the following…”
Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: These consolidated declaratory judgment and wrongful death actions require us to interpret the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106 , a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits.”
Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. v. Drouin, 521 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2007). · cites it 22× “The United States of America subsequently intervened in this action and filed a Memorandum in Support of the Constitutionality of 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (DE # 74). UPON CONSIDERATION of the motions and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court enters the following…”
Vargas v. Enter. Leasing Co., 60 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 12× “In its decision, the district court ruled upon the following question certified to be of great public importance: *1039 DOES THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, 49 U.S.C. § 30106 , PREEMPT SECTION 324.021(9)(b)2, FLORIDA STATUTES (2007)? Id.”
Antoine v. Kalandrishvili, 2017 NY Slip Op 3920 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “Following the commencement of this action, Nissan LT moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it is entitled to the protection of the Graves Amendment ( 49 USC § 30106 ), and, therefore, could not…”
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc., 129 A.D.3d 888 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 6× “Ryder *890 moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, on the ground that, under 49 USC § 30106 , known as “the Graves…”
Vargas v. Enter. Leasing Co., 993 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). · cites it 7× “The issue before the court is whether by enacting 49 U.S.C. § 30106 , the Graves Amendment, Congress preempted section 324.”
Meyer v. Nwokedi, 777 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 9× “Enterprise moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that Meyer’s claim for vicarious liability was barred by the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2006). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Enterprise, and the court of appeals affirmed.”
Rosado v. Daimlerchrysler Fin. Servs. Trust, 1 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). · cites it 12× “The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of DaimlerChrysler on the theory that Florida law had been preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 30106 , commonly referred to as the Graves Amendment, which shields long-term lessors and rental car companies from vicarious liability imposed…”
Show all 287 citing cases →
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.