From the outset it was clear that this was a battle Enterprise was never going to win, so it was only a question of how much negative press they'd absorb before buckling and working it out with her insurer.
It angers me that Enterprise wouldn't win - it's 1) a dangerous precedent to set, and 2) shows that the media can just bully its way into others' affairs in which they have no interest. The media here made money and showed that it has more power than a binding contract, the law of which is so deeply entrenched into our society that it pre-dates modern civilization in North America itself.
Just because it seems unfair does not mean that a contract should not be binding, and it definitely doesn't mean that when someone's on the losing end, they should just find a news source that's willing to paint the corporation as evil. Enterprise did nothing wrong here, and she did (by not having valid insurance to cover the situation).
giving permission does not equal accepting all liabilities.
Exactly - and a great legal argument. Permissive language does not imply all-encompassing outcomes.
And the idea that posting a sign absolves you of all liability. Since when? The McDonalds coffee cups have always had the warning on them that the contents may be hot. That didn't stop that woman from successfully suing after she spilled scalding coffee on herself.
The big picture is that companies can verbally promise the world while their contracts state exactly the opposite and there is currently no real recourse.
Employees are agents that are able to bind a corporation, but they cannot deviate from a standard form contract - there were no ambiguities here, and there was sufficient notice that a renter need not be informed by an Enterprise representative of the risks involved in using the drop-box. By the way, how do you know what the employee did or did not tell her? How do you know that she even locked the car?! The only concrete thing we know here (i.e. not trusting what he or she said, but objective, well-proven pieces of evidence) is that there was a contract that specified the liability of the renter in using the drop-box, and the additional sign-age on the box that reiterated, in plainer language, what use of the box would result in.
"Cockerill's insurance company initially took the position that she wasn't responsible for the Mustang after she returned it to Enterprise, so it wasn't going to cover the cost of the theft.
She said she later heard from her insurance company that it's now negotiating with Enterprise."
This indicates that her personal auto insurance is covering the cost, not that Enterprise has forgiven her. Her insurer was not at that time in possession of the rental contract, and could therefore not assume that she would be liable. When they got the contract, they understood that she would be.
That's her insurer's own prerogative based on her policy, which I am not privy to, and cannot comment on. I suspect all contracts here are being honoured, including Enterprise's own about the drop-box.
The apology she got from Enterprise was nothing other than a PR gesture of goodwill, and not because they had done any wrong. Media misappropriating the story, as per usual. I'm not impressed. At least the media didn't sway the breaking of any contracts.
...as for McDonald's coffee, the story is also ridiculous. She had $10,000 in medical bills (economic or pecuniary damages), and was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages (which are non-economic, such as 'pain and suffering'). There's a cap on damages in New Mexico, where the spilling occurred, and on appeal, the punitive damages were reversed to $640,000. McDonalds settled the case at that point, the amount of which is confidential - but it was far less than $640,000.
The reason why McDonalds lost was because their protocol was to have their coffee's standing temperature between 82-88 degrees C, which is considered "negligent" for the safety of any person, as no person's GI tract can withstand that temperature without being burned.
As a side, the granny spilled the coffee because she was an idiot - put it between her legs in the passenger seat to put in cream/sugar as her nephew drove off (while the car was in motion). The reason why they settled was because of her contributory negligence - McDonalds was not solely liable for her burns.
