Remote Car-Sharing Company Zipcar Not Responsible for Drunk Driver’s Crash

Tavares v. Zipcar Inc. (2026).

A California appeals court ruled that a car-sharing company that lets members unlock cars remotely (using a phone or membership card) is not legally responsible when one of its members drives drunk and causes a crash. Tavares v. Zipcar Inc. (2026).

The court said the company does not have a duty to check whether a driver is drunk before the person drives, and it does not have to install breathalyzers or similar devices in its cars.

What Happened

A man named Mauricio Tavares was seriously injured and paralyzed after a car crashed into a tree. He was a passenger in a car rented through Zipcar.
The driver had been drinking at a college party, then used his phone late at night to reserve and unlock the car.

Tavares sued Zipcar, arguing:

• Zipcar should not have allowed a drunk person to use its car, and
• Zipcar should have designed its cars to prevent drunk driving (for example, by using a breathalyzer).

What the Court Decided

The California Court of Appeal rejected those arguments.

The court explained that traditional rental car companies (where a customer rents a car in person at a counter) can sometimes be liable if an employee rents a car to someone who clearly appears drunk. That is because the employee has a chance to see the customer.

But remote car-sharing companies work differently:

• There is no in-person interaction
• The company never sees the driver at the moment the car is unlocked
• The law specifically allows this type of remote rental system

Because of that, the court said it would be unreasonable to require these companies to:

• Investigate whether a driver seems intoxicated, or
• Add technology to test sobriety before driving

If those requirements are going to exist, the court said, the Legislature—not the courts—must create them.

Key Legal Point

California law generally requires people and companies to act reasonably to avoid harming others. But the court said that rule has limits, and a company is not automatically responsible for harm caused by someone else unless the law clearly creates that responsibility.

Here, the Legislature passed a statute that specifically allows car-sharing companies like Zipcar to operate without face-to-face contact, which the court interpreted as also removing any duty to screen drivers for intoxication.

Bottom Line

The court upheld the trial court’s ruling:

• Zipcar was not legally responsible for the drunk driver’s actions
• Zipcar did not have to check for intoxication
• Zipcar did not have to add breathalyzers or similar safeguards

Sharing is caring: