Equipment rental companies--liability for accidents?

[digger242j]

The other day, it occured to me to wonder about how much liability equipment rental companies have for damages done with equipment they own.

Whether we're talking about big outfits, like Hertz, or NationsRent, or your local rental yard, once the equipment is out their door, they really have no control over how safely it's used. On those occasions when I've rented equipment, I don't recall ever having been questioned about whether I was sane, or sober, or even smart enough to operate it safely, let alone whether I was going to let someone else operate it.

As we see all too often here, such and such a contractor knocks out a powerline with a crane, or rips out a gas main and blows up a building. If that's done with a rented piece, is the rental company in line to get sued? It seems obvious to me that if an operator is careless enough, or simply unlucky enough to do such damage, it won't make a whole lot of difference if he's on a company owned machine, as opposed to a rented one. It seems equally obvious that the lawyers are going to go looking for the deepest pockets, which could possibly be those of the machine's owner--the rental company.

How often does that legal liability get passed on to the rental companies, and in what proportion? How much insurance do they carry, to guard themselves against their customer's mistakes?

Most of us here, that are self employed, are small to medium sized operations, and are not specifically in the rental business. What happens if I rent my machine to Steve for a day and he does some major damage? Am I going to get sued? Will my insurance cover me? Is there an easy way to protect oneself from these things?

I'm just curious.

 

[bobcatuser]

I rented a hydraulic breaker from a CAT rental store about 2 weeks ago (it was mounted on my S185). The job involved working inside a warehouse breaking and removing about 600 sq. ft. of 4-5" slab and a small pony wall.

After using the breaker for 20 minuets it blew a hydraulic line. When I phoned the CAT store and they told me they could send someone to change the hose but I’d have to wait, so I took the hose off and got it fixed myself.

After replacing the hose I started using the breaker. The slab was almost finished when the warning light came on and the machine shut down. When I got out of the machine to see what was wrong there was a big pool of oil under the machine and the hydraulic filter was ruptured.

The first thing I did was phone my Bobcat dealer. After explaining what happened, the service manager told me he was sure the nitrogen charge in the breaker was low. He told me all rental breakers are checked because if they are low on nitrogen they will damage the carrier’s hydraulic circuit.

I phoned the CAT store and explained the situation. The response from the manager was “the breaker worked fine for the last customer and something must be wrong with you’re machineâ€. When I returned the breaker they didn’t charge for the rental, but wouldn’t admit there was a problem.

My question is, if there was more damage to the machine (or if it caught on fire and burned the warehouse) how could you prove the breaker was defective?

 

[Dwan Hall]

The other day, it occured to me to wonder about how much liability equipment rental companies have for damages done with equipment they own.

Whether we're talking about big outfits, like Hertz, or NationsRent, or your local rental yard, once the equipment is out their door, they really have no control over how safely it's used. On those occasions when I've rented equipment, I don't recall ever having been questioned about whether I was sane, or sober, or even smart enough to operate it safely, let alone whether I was going to let someone else operate it.

It should not be up to the rental co. to be responsible for the actions of the operator. If they were where would it stop? the dealer, manufacturer, designer or the guy that came up with the original idea of that piece of equipment? It is like blaming the gun manufacture for every death cause by his brand of gun and we don't want to go there. Who is at blame? the operator unless it can be proven the equipment was defective.
In the case of that Cat blowing a hose and it was low on nitrogen and can be proven then the dealer would be responcible not only for the machine but also the cleanup. Now if there is a way for the operator to check the nitrogen leval even if it was low then it is on the operators sholders.
There is always the gray area of the rental co. renting to an operator(and I use that name loosly) that don't know what he is doing. That is ware I beleave a licence for operating equipment should be required.

This is just my personal opinion.

Dwan

 

[digger242j]

It should not be up to the rental co. to be responsible for the actions of the operator. If they were where would it stop? the dealer, manufacturer, designer or the guy that came up with the original idea of that piece of equipment?

I'm not going to disagree with that, but is that how it works in the real world?

I copied this off another website. It's in reference to the recent crash of a Chalk's Ocean Airways aircraft--a Grumman Mallard, that was built in 1947. It's part of what got me thinking about the question to begin with. The italics are mine:

"Second Lawsuit Filed In Chalk's Accident
"It Isn't About The Money"
Relatives of three victims in the December 19 downing of a seaplane have secured representation to go after Flying Boat Incorporated -- the operators of Chalk's Ocean Airways -- as well as anyone who might have had a hand in maintaining the aircraft.
The group will not settle for a class-action lawsuit against the airline's assets (such as they are) and insurance policies, according to attorney Manuel Von Ribbeck of The Nolan Law Group. They will also go after the insurance policies of everyone connected to the airline’s operations, as well as maintenance workers and any components manufacturers that potentially played a part in the operation of the aircraft.
That list could number in the dozens -- or more.
"Those additional defendants I am sure are also insured, and I’m sure they have assets that could be used to benefit or compensate for the damages that the families have suffered," Mr. Von Ribbeck said in a Tuesday press conference, according to The Bahama Journal. "

If you saw anything about the accident, it happened when one of the wings fell off the airplane. From the looks of it, this lawsuit could involve the company that supplied the aircraft's radios.

If that's the kind of thinking that can find it's way into the courtroom, how can the rental company that owns a machine that's involved in any sort of fatal accident be safe from liability?

 

[norrodbh]

I'm not going to disagree with that, but is that how it works in the real world?

I copied this off another website. It's in reference to the recent crash of a Chalk's Ocean Airways aircraft--a Grumman Mallard, that was built in 1947. It's part of what got me thinking about the question to begin with. The italics are mine:

"Second Lawsuit Filed In Chalk's Accident
"It Isn't About The Money" ?

Oh but it is about the money. The lawyers are not working for free, and they will name anyone and everyone with an insurance policy on the lawsuit.

Not saying it is right, but seems to be the norm. If I rented a peice of equipment that cause damage or injury because of equipment failure, I would expect to be held liable, even if it was a freak failure. But do not expect to pay because the user was a mental midget. In the rental business, I would be lucky just to get my machine back in working order. Whats that line about a "rented mule" :Cowboy

My commercial insurance policy prohits me from renting my equipment. But if business doesn't pick up, I may have to change that !

 

[Dozerboy]

Cat rental stores out here won't let you road the equipment out of there yard. Our owner worked out a release of liability with one of there head guys.