*1 RENT-A-CAR, al. v. RABINOVITZ et ACCENT INC. SE2d Judge. Smith, appellants involving were an automobile collision appellee Rent-A-Car, a vehicle rented Inc. The driver Appellants sought recovery against was uninsured. ory Accent on the the- required that since Accent was to that the him, driver was insured before the vehicle over its failure do so per negligence “proximate appellants’ inju- was ries.1 The trial court se and the cause” of
granted appellee’s appeal ment and denied that of followed. “[a]ny person who rents motor required provide vehicles from a U-drive-it owner is his own insur- companies provide ance, and . . shall be ... ‘spot’ purchased by person insurance, which shall be such before the U-drive-it owner shall be authorized turn a motor vehicle over to person. such If a U-drive-it owner turns over motor vehicle to ascertaining ‘spot’ without first that such insurance has been obtained, not, the U-drive-it owner shall as to that exempted chapter pro- transaction, be from the of this vided in Code Section 40-9-4.” negligence “In [a statute] violation of
per pur- se as to a pose the [statute] and decide falls within the class of it was intended to and whether the the harm it was intended construing statute, we must look to the natural and (Citations import language.” punctuation most obvious of its omitted.) Montgomery Cooper, Ward & Co. v. 177 Ga. (1) (339 755) (1986). SE2d plain reading A of OCGA 40-9-102 reveals it is remedial na- ture. Its mandate “is in the nature of a bond against damages by a car of the U-Drive- (2) (82 It.” Co. v. 200, Cas. 742) (1954). specifically Its is not tortious acts operators vehicles, of rental but rather to assure tortfeasors 1 Appellants suggest inquire also that as a result of Accent’s failure insured, they wrongfully However, recovery. driver was denied two sources of this injuries complained merely makeweight argument. resulting from Accent’s omission physical are recovery. not the loss a second We source of relitigate appellants merely logic, their appear for the because it would special concurrence, words of the “misses the mark.” clear that do not wish to limit their purchased “spot” to that which would have realized had the uninsured driver correctly special explains, insurance. as the concurrence a less approach zealous been as unsuccessful. Georgia of the the enactment uninsured. Since are not 1974, Accent have been such as Reparations Act owners Accident 113, 1974, 3; p. Ga. L. any event. their vehicles to insure 716) (1991). 668, Jones pro- “spot” insurance when the was not the law 1951 p. Ga. L. first enacted. See vision was *2 prevent or even discour- clearly designed was not The statute compa- renting from vehicles with otherwise uninsured motorists age by which contrary, the means On nies like Accent. the spot.” Even the the insurance “on persons can obtain not have oc- collision in this assuming that the driver had renting that its for Accent’s failure confirm curred but him, not vehicle to this does before it released the insured himself exclusively of the statute on which interpretation alter our was not Since OCGA 40-9-102 rely for from Accent. collision caused designed the which granting err in the court did not Accent’s ment. J., J., McMurray, C. P. concur Judgment Pope, affirmed.
specially. specially. Presiding Judge, concurring McMurray, in the the judgment, concur but not the reasons stated majority. Rabinovitz, Rabinovitz,
Stephen S. Judith B. Lawrence Rabino- Cindy vitz and Mason Rabinovitz an action Accent Rent- filed A-Car, (“Accent”), when M. Inc. James alleging a taxi cab an rental car into occu- negligently Brewer drove Accent allege pied by Specifically, the Rabinovitzes. and that Accent negligently entrusted a rental car to Brewer Brewer negligent failing as a of law had liability by OCGA 40-9-102.2 automobile insurance as summary Upon opposing the judgment, motions covering vehicle he evidence reveals that Brewer had no insurance the vehicle insured as re- rented from Accent and that Accent had the quired by conflicting evidence OCGA 33-34-4.3 there acquire requires agency a from a who rents a rental agency turning covering prohibits a rental vehicle and the rental requirement may acquired. until motor vehicle over to renter such insurance “[T]his already policy for his own vehicle a vehicle insurance the renter holds satisfied Alternatively, may satisfy driving vehicle. that covers renter while another rental, by purchasing that covers mandate at the time of an insurance (Footnote omitted.) III, specific III Miller E. Jenkins and Wallace rental vehicle.” Frank (1993 ed.). (Including Law), pp. Auto. Ins. Law Tort Georgia requires prescribed in the Motor minimum OCGA 33-34-4 now lack regarding knowledge Accent’s of insurance and there only attempt that Accent evidence made a veiled to determine customer) (or any whether Brewer had in- surance before car over to him. It is genuine these circumstances raise issues of material as to Ac- i.e., cent’s with OCGA whether Accent estab- him lished that Brewer had insurance before car. ignores pertinent majority compliance, evidence vel (in event) non, with this and holds that statute Rabinovitzes recover designed pre- because “OCGA 40-9-102 was not [allegedly] vent collision which inju- caused Rabinovitzes’] [the ries. . . .” It is this logic misses the mark. “ ‘In negli- violation of the ordinance is se gence per (1)
purpose of the ordinance and decide falls within the class of it was intended harm was intended to (Cit.)’ (2b) Rhodes v. 545) (1967).” Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Cooper, 177 Ga. end, Georgia To Court of Appeals observed in Continental Cas. Co. v. *3 (82 742), purpose the (now of insurance under Ga. L. 40-9-102) pp. guarantee “is ... § public against by damages some renter of a car of object mind, my U-Drive-It.” at With Id. 209. in persons Rabinovitzes fall within the class of OCGA 40-9- protect was intended to the Rabinovitzes now
complain (i.e., of protection financially irresponsible lack of from a driver) rental car is the harm the statute was intended against. I base undisputed this conclusion on that the Rabin- ovitzes of public they allege are members the general and that dam- age as result the negligence financially irresponsible of of a Consequently, driver. is controlling issue is whether the Rabinovitzes were alleged harmed failure to comply stated, Conversely pivotal with OCGA 40-9-102. issue in judice the case sub is the object of OCGA 40-9-102 was accomplished.
The of OCGA 40-9-102 “is ... guarantee responsibil- Vehicle Act. Code section defines minimum financial “$15,000.00 bodily accident, injury of in because or death of one one subject person, $30,000.00 bodily injury to said limit for one amount of of because accident, $10,000.00 or death of two or one more the amount of because injury property of to or destruction others in one accident. . .” OCGA 40-9-2 (5) (A). appears responsibility the amounts now described minimum financial for the rental car it turned over Brewer. U-Drive- of a car irresponsible damages 200, 209, supra. In the Cas. Co. v. It.” 40-9-102 object view that the judice, sub liability insur- since that Accent had met words, covering the collision. ance policy against liability insurance in Accent’s automobile They are irresponsibility. allegedly caused damages 40- comply with OCGA by Accent’s failure to not harmed therefore the ma- judgment reason I concur and this the sole opinion.3 jority spe- Judge Pope joins Chief am authorized state that concurrence.
cial July 11, 1994.
Decided Bush, Clay F. for III, Douglas M. Farnham, McKinley F.
Drew, Hall Eckl & appellee. for COLQUITT THE STATE. 247) Judge R. Harold Banke. by jury of statu- appellant, Colquitt,
The Milbert was convicted new rape of his motion tory appeals and incest. He the denial trial. black, the trial court erred appellant, contends that who challenges overruling peremptory his to the State’s use of challenge Ken- of race. Batson v. solely jurors five on basis
to strike black (1986). tucky, S. 90 LE2d basis 476 U. SC *4 greatly logical with 40-9-102 would have It seems that Accent’s would now be covered under two increased the likelihood that one, i.e., pursuant policies coverage Accent maintained insurance instead of pursuant to OCGA 40-9-102. Brewer should have had OCGA 33-34-4 and authorization, Appeals has author I do not believe the Court of without prescribed noncompliance legislative penalty with to extend the exemption [Georgia’s Act] “from drafted, awkwardly Although it seems OCGA 40-9-4 is Code Section 40-9-4.” agency’s penalty “exemption” will the rental car means that secondary. primary See Jones v. than rather Jackson, 716); Atlanta Rent-A-Car