Question

John is planning on taking his family on a planned vacation. He is going camping. Unfortunately, on the day he is scheduled to leave, his truck with the trailer hitch breaks down. The truck will require repairs that will prevent John and his family from going on the vacation, and he will lose his deposit. John calls you to ask if he can borrow your truck to take his trailer camping.

As John is driving into the campsite he misjudges the distance from a tree and scrapes the rear panel of the truck causing serious damage.

Note: Please ignore insurance in answering this question.

1. What responsibility does John have legally for the damage to your vehicle, and why? Please identify the correct term for each party.
2. Would John’s responsibility be the same if he had rented the truck from a car rental business? Please identify the correct term for each party.
3. What would be your responsibility if John had borrowed your vehicle to go to a job interview? Would your “names” change from your answer in (i)? If so, what would each party be called?
4. Would your answer to part (i) be the same if the damage had occurred because of a storm that knocked down a branch causing the damage to the truck? If so, how and why would it be different?

Answer 1

Here, we will answer the question in parts.

The first part was on the legal responsibility of John for damaging the vehicle. First, let's identify the correct terms for each of the parties. If the borrowing is for payment, then I will be lessor, and John will be the lessee. In other cases, they will be known by the names lender and borrower respectively. Since the borrowed property is confronted with damage, the former person( I ) will be the aggrieved party and the latter( John) will be the defaulting party. Thus, the distinct terms to identify each of them varies. Now, lets come to the main part of the question regarding the legal responsibility of John for the damage of the vehicle. If there is an agreement or a contract for borrowing, then John is completely liable to make good, the entire loss occurred to the former. However, even in the absence, there is an implied obligation from the part of John to pay for damages. But,  the legal position of the former is only strong in the presence of a valid contract.

Now, let us observe the next part of the question. If the first party is a car rental business, then also the liability of John will be the same unless there is any contract to the contrary. In fact, John will be more compulsorily liable to pay full for the damage since, unlike the first case, the car rental business always prepares necessary contracts for the same and has a good legal strength. So John will have to be extra careful while renting through a car rental business.

Even if the car was rented for a job interview, I don't think there would be a change in position from that of the first case. There is no relevance to the purpose of the borrowing, whether it is for family vacation or for a job interview. The difference only comes if there is a contract in one case and in other, there is not. The name of the parties will also remain the same.

Then coming to the last part of the question, things take a different turn. In the last case, the car was damaged, not due to the negligence of John, but due to a natural disaster like a storm. As per common law, if damage has occurred, not due to the fault of the borrower, then he need not pay the compensation for the damage. This rule may vary from region to region across the globe, but this is what the common rule is about.

Therefore we can conclude that the borrower must pay compensation is the property is lost/damaged due to his negligence/deliberate intention/ natural damage while using for an illegal purpose/usage for a reason other than which is stated in the contract. If the damage is beyond his control and in his good faith, then he need not bear its liability.