Budget Rent-a-Car System, Inc. v. Chappell
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
407 F.3d 166 (2005)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Joseph Powell (defendant) was a Michigan resident, and his girlfriend, Nicole Chappell (defendant) was a New York resident. Powell rented a car from Budget-Rent-a-Car System, Inc. (Budget) (plaintiff) in Michigan, drove the car to New York to stay with Chappell, and then set out to drive back to Michigan with Chappell as his passenger. While driving through Pennsylvania, Powell fell asleep at the wheel, and the car flipped over. Powell did not suffer substantial injuries, but Chappell was permanently paralyzed. Chappell returned to New York and received medical treatment and care from medical providers in New York with the aid of a New York welfare program. Budget initiated an action against Powell and Chappell in Pennsylvania district court, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding which state’s substantive law governed Budget’s vicarious liability as the owner of the vehicle. Budget argued for Michigan law, which capped vicarious liability at $20,000, while Chappell argued for New York law, which provided unlimited vicarious liability. The district court granted summary judgment for Budget based on applying Pennsylvania law, which disallowed vicarious liability. The matter was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ambro, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
