Hodges v. Hertz Corp.
351 F. Supp. 3d 1227
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- July 7, 2015: RCT employees Neil Lewis and Rodney Williams (hikers who transported Hertz vehicles at SFO) fought; Williams fatally stabbed Lewis and was later convicted of second-degree murder.
- Plaintiffs (Lewis's heirs and parents) sued Hertz, Firefly, RCT, DTG, and Dollar Thrifty for survival and wrongful death, alleging negligent hiring/supervision and related theories.
- RCT was an independent contractor that provided hikers to Hertz; Hertz had MSAs with other hiker vendors (FleetLogix, EDS) requiring pre-employment criminal background checks, but RCT did not sign an MSA.
- Williams had prior felony convictions and arrests; RCT hired him despite that record and without evidence it required or ran a background check.
- Key disputed factual issue: whether Hertz retained control over RCT’s operations (including safety/hiring practices) and whether Hertz affirmatively contributed (by omission or action) to Lewis’s death by failing to require background checks as it did with other contractors.
- Procedural posture: Defendants moved for summary judgment; court granted in part and denied in part — denied summary judgment on vicarious liability under the Hooker/retained-control negligent-omission theory, granted summary judgment for defendants on Plaintiffs’ direct negligence claim (no duty found).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vicarious liability under retained-control (Hooker) | Hertz retained control over RCT’s performance and safety and implicitly promised to enforce safety rules (e.g., background checks); its omission affirmatively contributed to Lewis’s death. | Hertz hired an independent contractor and did not retain control over hiring/discipline; no affirmative contribution to the murder. | Denied summary judgment: triable disputes exist whether Hertz retained control over safety and negligently omitted enforcement of background checks, so Hooker negligent-omission theory survives. |
| Vicarious liability via other exceptions (public franchise; non-delegable contractual duty) | Alleged non-delegable duties based on SFO leases and public franchise to operate rental business safely. | No basis to apply those exceptions here. | Court declined to decide (expressed serious doubt they apply); Plaintiffs must notify if they will pursue them. |
| Direct negligence (duty) | Hertz created risk by failing to enforce its established contractor screening practices; thus owed duty to Lewis. | No special duty to Lewis; application of Rowland factors does not support imposing a duty. | Granted summary judgment for defendants on direct negligence: Plaintiffs failed to show a cognizable duty as a matter of law. |
| Evidentiary/judicial notice issues (exhibits, juvenile records) | Plaintiffs offered exhibits and expert reports; sought judicial notice of municipal documents. | Defendants objected to many exhibits/authentication and to use of juvenile records. | Court overruled most authentication objections, sustained objection to juvenile record (Ex.17) as unauthorized; took judicial notice of public records/existence of certain documents but not the truth of their contents. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2002) (hirer liable when retained control affirmatively contributes to contractor employee injury; distinguishes active participation from passive permission)
- Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993) (general rule: hirer of independent contractor not liable absent exceptions)
- SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 590 (Cal. 2011) (summary of independent-contractor liability rule and exceptions)
- Tverberg v. Fillner Constr., 202 Cal.App.4th 1439 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (negligent omission: implied promise to undertake safety measure can create triable issue when not performed)
- Browne v. Turner Construction Co., 127 Cal.App.4th 1334 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (furnishing then withdrawing safety equipment can constitute negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking)
- Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, 25 Cal.4th 1235 (Cal. 2001) (limits negligent-hiring claims against hirers of contractors; negligent hiring exception focuses on hiring the contractor, not individual contractor employees)