## Facts

- Cherie Straughan had a serious drinking problem and a history of driving while intoxicated.
- Cherie had been through multiple recovery homes (including eight) and, after wrecking her prior car, lived with her parents.
- Despite these problems, Cherie continued drinking.
- Pamela McKenna, Cherie’s hairdresser, saw Cherie regularly at the salon (about every Saturday) and was aware of her drinking.
- McKenna urged Cherie’s parents not to get Cherie another car, warning that doing so was “like giving a six-year-old a loaded gun and telling them not to use it.”
- Cherie’s mother responded that she was tired of driving Cherie to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
- The Straughans loaned Cherie money to obtain a car, and the car was purchased/registered in Cherie’s name, with Cherie’s father listed as lienholder.
- About ten days later, Cherie drove that car while intoxicated, crossed onto the wrong side of the road, and hit McKenna head-on, injuring her.
- McKenna sued Cherie’s parents on a negligent-entrustment theory, alleging they effectively supplied the car to Cherie despite knowing she was an unsafe, intoxicated driver.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Straughans on the ground that they did not own or control the car and therefore, as a matter of law, did not “entrust” it to Cherie.
- McKenna appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a negligent-entrustment claim may proceed when defendants allegedly supplied a vehicle to an unfit driver by financing or arranging its purchase, even though the driver held registered title and defendants denied ownership or control of the car.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for the Straughans.
- The court held that a factfinder could conclude the Straughans “supplied” the car to Cherie for purposes of negligent entrustment based on evidence they financed or arranged the acquisition, even if the car was titled in Cherie’s name.
- The court concluded that triable issues existed regarding the Straughans’ knowledge of Cherie’s alcoholism and drunk-driving history and whether supplying the car created a foreseeable risk of harm.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Negligent entrustment can be based on supplying or furnishing a vehicle for another’s use when the supplier knows or should know the person is likely to use it in a manner involving an unreasonable risk of physical harm.
- Formal ownership or registered title is not necessarily required; the focus is on whether defendants provided the means of use (such as by financing or facilitating the acquisition) and did so with the required knowledge.
- Summary judgment is improper where the evidence permits competing inferences on material questions, including whether defendants supplied the vehicle and whether they knew or should have known of the driver’s unfitness.

## Conclusion

McKenna v. Straughan holds that parents who loan money or otherwise facilitate a car purchase for an adult child with a known history of alcoholism and drunk driving may face negligent-entrustment liability even if the car is titled in the child’s name, and that disputes over “supplying” the vehicle and knowledge of the risk ordinarily must be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.


McKenna v. Straughan, 222 Cal. Rptr. 462 (1986)