Scott v. Hertz Corp.

722 So. 2d 231, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14566, 1998 WL 796582

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal the denial of their motions to file amended complaints to state a cause of action against The Hertz Corporation based on its decision to rent a car to a driver under the age of twenty-five years, contrary to the corporation’s policy establishing twenty-five as the driver’s minimum age. We agree with the reasoning of the Oregon Court of Appeals when it held, “If a 16-year-old can lawfully drive a car, a person may entrust a ear to a driver who is that age or older without being negligent.... Without more, an allegation that a person entrusted a ear to a person who is under 25 cannot state a claim for negligent entrustment.” Mathews v. Federated Svc. Ins. Co., 122 Or.App. 124, 857 P.2d 852, 858 (Or.App.1993). Therefore, Appellants’ proposed amended complaints did not state a cause of action.

Because the amendment would have been futile, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.