## Facts

- Albert Stewart owned an automobile and permitted his son, Walter Stewart, to drive it.
- While driving on a public road, Walter negligently struck David Clark from the rear, causing personal injuries.
- Clark sought to show Walter had a reputation for reckless driving and that Albert knew or should have known of that recklessness.
- Clark pursued liability theories including negligent entrustment (negligently permitting a reckless driver to use the car) and vicarious liability based on agency/respondeat superior.
- At trial, Clark cross-examined Albert about Albert’s knowledge of Walter’s prior reckless driving; the trial court allowed the questioning.
- The jury returned a verdict for Clark, and judgment was entered for Clark.
- The court of appeals reversed, ruling the cross-examination about prior reckless driving was improper and reversible error.
- Clark appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

## Issues

1. In a negligent-entrustment claim against a vehicle owner, may the plaintiff cross-examine the owner about the owner’s knowledge of the driver’s prior negligent or reckless driving?
2. Is a jury instruction stating, without qualification, that pedestrians and drivers “have equal rights in the highway or street” erroneous?
3. Whether the evidence supported liability under an agency/respondeat superior theory (as an additional basis for the owner’s liability).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals.
- The Court held that cross-examination of the owner about knowledge of the driver’s prior reckless acts was proper where negligent entrustment was in issue.
- The Court stated that an unqualified instruction that pedestrians and motorists have “equal rights” in the street or highway is erroneous because it can misstate the parties’ respective duties of care.
- The Court treated the challenged “equal rights” language as part of the definition of the issues, such that a general exception to the charge preserved the error.

## Legal Principles

- In negligent-entrustment claims, evidence of a driver’s prior negligent or reckless acts is admissible when offered to show the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the driver’s incompetence or recklessness and the owner’s negligence in permitting use of the vehicle.
- Cross-examination of the entrustor on knowledge of the entrustee’s prior reckless driving may be permitted when it bears on the entrustor’s negligence, not to prove negligence on the occasion in suit by propensity.
- A jury instruction that pedestrians and motorists have “equal rights” in the roadway, if given without qualification, is erroneous because it may mislead the jury about the applicable duties of care under the circumstances.
- If a driver operates the owner’s automobile as the owner’s agent and within the scope of that agency, the owner may be vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence under respondeat superior.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that, where negligent entrustment is alleged, the vehicle owner may be questioned about knowledge of the driver’s prior reckless conduct because it is relevant to the owner’s negligence, and it cautioned that an unqualified “equal rights” instruction regarding pedestrians and motorists is an incorrect statement of law.


Clark v. Stewart, 126 Ohio St. 263, 185 N.E. 71 (1933)