Relying upon the terms of the rental agreement, Avis claimed that it did not consent to the operation of its car by Tyrone Glenn Hill. The jury found that the automobile was not being operated with Avis' consent. Therefore, the jury never reached the issue of Tyrone Hill's negligence in operating the vehicle and judgment was entered in Avis' favor. The motion was denied by the trial court, as was plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. A new trial is appropriate when there has been an error of law occurring in the proceedings.
Questions of law are subject to de novo review.
As a matter of law, the issue of whether Avis consented to Tyrone Hill's use of the vehicle should have been decided by the trial court in the affirmative. Because an issue of law went to the jury and was resolved contrary to the law, a new trial is warranted. The key issue in this case was whether Tyrone Hill was operating the vehicle owned by Avis with Avis' consent. The owner shall not be liable, however, unless the motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge. It shall be presumed that the motor vehicle is being driven with the knowledge and consent of the owner if it is driven at the time of the injury by his or her father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate member of the family.