Facts
- Mark Vince was a passenger who suffered serious injuries when the car in which he rode crashed.
- Luella Wilson provided money enabling her grandnephew to purchase the vehicle.
- Ace Auto Sales, Inc. sold the vehicle; Gary Gardner, Ace’s president, handled the transaction.
- Evidence showed Wilson knew her grandnephew was unlicensed, had repeatedly failed the driving test, and abused drugs and alcohol.
- Evidence also indicated Ace and Gardner knew, or were told, that the buyer was unlicensed and had related competency problems.
- Vince sued Wilson, Ace, and Gardner for negligent entrustment.
- The trial court directed verdicts for Ace and Gardner after the plaintiff’s case, but submitted the negligent-entrustment claim against Wilson to the jury.
- The jury returned a substantial verdict against Wilson; Wilson appealed, and Vince appealed the directed verdicts for Ace and Gardner.
Issues
- Whether a person who knowingly provides funds enabling an incompetent, unlicensed driver to obtain a vehicle can be liable for negligent entrustment despite lacking ownership or physical control of the vehicle.
- Whether a dealer and salesperson who knowingly sell a vehicle to an incompetent, unlicensed driver can be liable for negligent entrustment, making a directed verdict improper.
Decision
- The judgment against Wilson was affirmed.
- The directed verdicts for Ace and Gardner were reversed.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the negligent-entrustment claims against Ace and Gardner.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to decide negligent entrustment as to all defendants.
Legal Principles
- Negligent entrustment focuses on supplying a dangerous instrumentality for another’s use when the supplier knows or has reason to know the user is likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm.
- Ownership or a continuing right to control the instrumentality is not a necessary condition for negligent-entrustment liability if the defendant’s conduct enabled the incompetent user’s access.
- Providing purchase money can constitute “supplying” for negligent entrustment when the assistance foreseeably facilitates an incompetent driver’s operation of the vehicle.
- A commercial sale can also constitute “supplying” for negligent entrustment; sellers may have a duty not to sell a vehicle to a known incompetent driver.
- When evidence permits reasonable disagreement on negligence and causation, negligent entrustment should be decided by the jury rather than by directed verdict.
Conclusion
The court refined negligent entrustment to reach conduct that enables an incompetent driver’s access to a vehicle, including financing the purchase and selling the car with knowledge of the driver’s incompetence, and held that the evidence required jury consideration for each defendant.