## Facts

- Lorrie Kanoza owned a Ford Escort, but her minor son, Christopher Kanoza, was the vehicle’s primary user.
- Kanoza drove the Escort to a party attended by teenagers, including 15-year-old Lindsay Duffy.
- During the party, Kanoza allowed another guest to take the Escort out briefly and then return it.
- After the car was returned, Kanoza played “beer pong” with Duffy, and he was present while Duffy consumed beer.
- After drinking, Duffy took the keys, got into the driver’s seat, and drove away in the Escort with passengers, including Matthew Rice.
- Evidence indicated Kanoza saw Duffy with the keys and in the driver’s seat but did not protest or try to stop her from driving.
- Shortly after leaving the party, Duffy crashed the Escort into a sport utility vehicle, and Rice allegedly suffered serious injuries.
- Rice sued Kanoza, asserting negligent entrustment based on Kanoza’s alleged permission for an underage, intoxicated driver to use the car.
- Kanoza moved for summary judgment, arguing he could not be liable for negligent entrustment because he did not own the Escort.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Kanoza, and Rice appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Ohio law, a negligent-entrustment claim may be brought against a nonowner who had control over a vehicle and permitted another to drive it.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the evidence could support findings that Kanoza controlled the Escort and knew or should have known Duffy was an unsafe driver due to her age and drinking.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case.
- The court held that negligent entrustment is not limited to titled owners; a nonowner who has control over a vehicle may be liable if the person permits an incompetent or unfit driver to operate it.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by treating lack of title ownership as a complete bar to the claim.
- Construing the evidence in Rice’s favor, the court determined there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Kanoza’s control of the Escort and whether he effectively allowed Duffy—an underage person who had been drinking—to drive.

## Legal Principles

- Negligent entrustment focuses on whether the defendant had the ability to permit or prevent use of the vehicle (control), not solely on whether the defendant held legal title.
- Liability may arise when a person supplies, lends, or allows use of a vehicle to someone the person knows or should know is likely to operate it in a manner creating an unreasonable risk of physical harm (consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 as applied by Ohio courts).
- Summary judgment is improper when, viewing the evidence most strongly for the nonmoving party, reasonable factfinders could differ on material questions such as control, permission, and knowledge of the driver’s unfitness.

## Conclusion

Rice v. Kanoza held that Ohio negligent-entrustment liability is not confined to the titled owner of a vehicle; a nonowner who had control over the car and permitted an unfit driver to operate it may be liable, and because the record could support findings that Kanoza controlled the Escort and allowed an underage, drinking driver to take it, the appellate court reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.


Rice v. Kanoza, 2012 WL 2125988 (2012)