## Facts

- Police in Kingsport, Tennessee received a report of an erratically driven vehicle possibly operated by an intoxicated driver.
- Officer Murray located the vehicle, activated emergency lights, and the driver did not stop.
- The driver, Eric N. Fisher, sped off, exceeded 100 mph, and ran a red light at an intersection.
- Fisher struck Jasmine A. Ali’s vehicle; the impact caused Fisher’s vehicle to become airborne and land on top of Ali’s car.
- Ali sustained serious injuries, including severe injuries to her collar bone and right ankle.
- Fisher’s blood-alcohol level tested at 0.21%.
- The vehicle was owned by Thomas Scheve; Ali alleged Scheve negligently entrusted the vehicle to Fisher and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether an automobile owner who negligently entrusts a vehicle to another is vicariously liable for the driver-entrustee’s negligent operation of the vehicle.
2. Under Tennessee comparative fault, whether a negligent entrustor’s liability must be apportioned separately from the driver’s negligence or treated as liability for the full damages caused by the driver.

## Decision

- The jury apportioned fault at 80% to Fisher and 20% to Scheve (negligent entrustment).
- The trial court amended the judgment to impose vicarious liability on Scheve for Fisher’s negligence, making Scheve liable for all compensatory and punitive damages.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the amended judgment and reinstated the jury’s comparative-fault apportionment.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that negligent entrustment does not impose vicarious liability for the driver’s negligence and remanded for proceedings consistent with the reinstated apportionment.

## Legal Principles

- Negligent entrustment is a direct-liability tort based on the owner’s own negligence in entrusting a vehicle to an incompetent or unfit driver when harm is reasonably foreseeable.
- Negligent entrustment does not “stand in” for a vicarious-liability relationship (such as employer–employee) and does not make the entrustor liable for all negligent acts of the entrustee.
- Tennessee comparative fault requires allocating fault among responsible actors; each tortfeasor is liable only for damages corresponding to that party’s percentage of fault.
- Treating negligent entrustment as a basis for vicarious liability would effectively reintroduce joint and several liability contrary to comparative-fault allocation.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that an owner’s negligent entrustment of a vehicle creates independent, proportionate liability for the owner’s own negligence and does not make the owner vicariously liable for the driver’s negligent operation; damages must be allocated according to comparative fault.


Ali v. Fisher, 145 S.W.3d 557 (Tenn. 2004)