If you can hold the owner of a car liable for a crash then what stops you from holding the creator of a car liable for a crash? Why not go after Toyota? By this line of reasoning Toyota is just as culpable as Ms. Fong.
Indeed, some tort actions have gone beyond owners and even pursued manufactures -- particularly gun manufactures.
The idea that an object owner or object creator might be liable for the actions of an object user is unreasonable and perverse. It has a chilling effect on innovation and forces small businesses (who can't afford to lobby regulatory protections such as the Graves amendment) out of the market.
The issue here is not regulation of lobbying. It's the very simple fact that driving a car creates substantial risks that have a price. Someone must pay that price. Owners and operators of dangerous instrumentalities are much more appropriate to bear that price than injured third parties. Owners are much more likely to be able to bear the cost than operators. If you shield owners, than you are practically shifting the burden to the public. I.e. socializing the costs. Yes it's great for small businesses to shift the costs of their profit-making activity to the public.
Ms. Fong's ownership of the car gives her the right to profit by renting it. It is fair to link that right with the obligation for risks created by that profit-making activity.
The issue is exactly one of lobbying. As the article notes, the auto insurance industry has successfully lobbied to pass the Graves Amendment, which nullifies vicarious liability for auto rental. The article mentions this, and you can read more here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VI/A/301/I/30106
Car rental owners are shielded by this lobbied-for legislation. The only question is whether Ms. Fong will qualify as a rental agency for the purposes of this law.
This is precisely a case where an industry has lobbied for an exemption which may exclude others from competing in said industry. It is a textbook example of regulation preventing disruption of an established industry.
The operator here is liable. But if the operator has insufficient assets to satisfy the damages, the owner is a more sensible person to bear the costs of the accident than the injured party.
This is fundamentally unjust.
How exactly is car rental an "inherently dangerous business," in the absence of a legion of berserk trial lawyers doing everything in their power to make it so?
Seems like a near-perfect illustration of begging the question.
You could assign the consequences of blame arbitrarily like that but it would have negative consequences on society. For example people would be less likely to do anything since association can now always lead to 100% blame. It's like a mobster who tries to get you to repay a relative's debts. That never makes sense and neither does this.
However the problem here is that the renter was at fault, but he/she is dead, so now they're trying to pin the responsibility on the closest related entity (even though with NO fault by Ms. Fong) that can also pay the costs.
If the person who died (or his/her family) has no claims to compensation from Ms. Fong, then why would the people he/she injured have any claims from her?
Except that in this case there's another party: RelayRides, the rental management company. I think their own actions indicate an awareness that they will have to foot the bill for this... not just because Ms. Fong-Jones could probably recover her own costs, if any, in court, but also because the survival of their business depends on it.
Anyone with a driver's license and enough money can walk into a car dealership and be "operating the dangerous instrument" an hour later. In this case would the car dealership be liable for a crash? Should they be vetting who they sell cars to? Or what about the state that issued the driver's license? After all, it's their actual job to vet drivers. By your logic the DMV should be liable for every accident caused by a driver with a valid license.