two thousand and eleven james only the third drove a car with the knowledge and permission of his here and got in an accident with one basket respect illinois attorney at the trial court granted underage drinking when he was fifteen he had a stop sign violation running a stop sign that same year he had been caught with possession of cannabis in a car zeshan a drug of quitman in a car and had been in a rear end accident the following year all of these things proceeded are accidents in actually two accidents i believe the facts demonstrate that there is at least the question of fact whether mr and mrs hurley were guilty of negligently in trusting their car to their son at the time of the older injury should be able to determine whether in their judgment the parents judgement was appropriate in this case most of the facts of the crashes and they say plural are undisputed mr ba was driving when he was rear ended by mr james really the third they were on their way out of town with several friends to go to the what i would call senior trip mr curly the father knew that his son was driving the vehicle and where he was going at the time there is a crash rear end crash that coincidentally was at the same intersection almost the exact same location where james had been involved in a car crash the year he was not it was not thumb james just that well i think you just really bring up a national question if i think one of the one of the questions i think the case law poses is is a ticket this case the choir determinations of other courts other police officers other people there are lots of reasons why people don't get tickets for car accidents was reasons why people don't pursue claim for car accidents and so i don't believe at this juncture to make that determination we know that that indicates that mr hurley a piece rear ended somebody else and it's part of the equation and should be factored in for a jury to determine if the parents decision to allow the change to drive stop sign violation that was a moving violation as mr is zero points out that is the only moving violation the possession of cannabis in the possession of drug quickness were also tickets that were occurred while he was in a car but they are not truly moving  critical factor for a leader in the argument regarding each incident they decide the three of them together decide that they're going to drive the car back to the family home that has the damage from her that damaged bumpers moved in put in the parents car and on the way home the hood of the of james's vehicle wise up and there is a hard swerve i made a mistake in my briefcase that there was contact between the two cars between mr bassett in the other car that was a mistake that there was no actual physical contact impact i i think that one of the real questions that this court has to determine his ultimate leon summary judgment is the trial court able to say without any reservation the no reasonable jury could ever determine that this was negligent entrustment based on the record i think it's a dangerous consideration to start of women needing prior criminal activity prior other acts to say that that can't have any bearing or impact on records driving convictions as justice right pointed out i think that's a narrow view and i can certainly concoct scenarios in my mind and you know the court can as well where somebody without any prior traffic tickets would certainly be somebody who should not be behind the wheel for example somebody who all cases talk about somebody without a driver's license that there is been some debate about whether they should be driving at all having a brother's wife sense or not doesn't make you a good driver but certainly somebody with no experience in no driving record or no driver's license should be behind the wheel my eleven year old son has no driver's license no no tickets nothing but if i put him behind the wheel of my car that would make him a good driver what is wrong is that he doesn't have the judgment necessary to operate a car safely i think if you take the case cough illinois across the country at a scale that's really the critical question is that jury to consider whether a prior bad acts open driver are enough to give his parents when they hand him the keys pause to think maybe this person shouldn't be driving it's the judgment of somebody that is in question here and that judgment poor judgment should give parents anywhere pause about handing their their keys to their son to go out and write particularly in the facts of this case where they know he's going off out of town with a carload of kids goes through the same intersection and has another collision it's the judgment that we are asking the court to consider the judgment of those parents and yes while there may only be a stop sign violation in his driving record that's not the only consideration here and there are lots of scenarios where somebody shouldn't be behind the wheel even if they don't have any traffic tickets in the past and that's what i think isn't important to consider here and there is some good discussion would lose allowed to drive in the on the secretary of state mr w permitted to drop yes that is correct but that permission is granted by the secretary of state the law says a negligent entrustment that somebody was a superior right of control such as in this case has an extra step that they have to do and they have to consider whether even though he's a valid license he's somebody that should be driving because that is a trust they are trusting a danger minute dangerous instrumentality to the hands of their son and they have an extra level of responsibility i can tell you that there has to be a good faith basis for filing a complaint if wait here we have five prior occurrences one of them traffic four of them criminal yes i believe that the parents should be given you driving along no two o two of them absolutely have nothing to do with driving but they do display up were lack of judgment and that's what's the concern here is that this young boy who this is in thousand year old me and at the time of the crash was displaying it consistent in person and lack of judgment and it wasn't just one time and that's not what we're asking about here the way i think the case law says that it can be that case we're talking about a person of lack of judgment and that person is the lack of judgment was known and the parents had the ability to stop this accident from happening rather a jury decides whether they should have in this case or not that's not the question here today we're just asking the jury should be able to determine based on the totality of circumstances should the parents have been given pause and not given him the keys that day to a carload of kids going off on a what i call senior trip and how does the mother one of these she's not going to trial i will concede that the control of the mother is not from a legal perspective is much less strong against the mother than it is of the father the father has title i will say that this follows the control goes that control is demonstrated at the scene after the first crash because at that time both mom and dad arrived at the scene and mom and dad are doing the questioning i think the deposition testimony bears that out it shows that mom has that control at the scene and importantly for the second crash because you have two licensed drivers and adults at the scene they didn't have to put their son into the driver's seat of the scene car and have him drive again i think that shows further evidence of negligent trust me now we have the backdrop of the five violations that i've talked about now we have a crash just moments ago and the parents choose to put him in the car again and i think that's further evidence of negligent entrustment that that in of itself demonstrates the control of both parents but also than the lack of judgment that the parents have prior to the second i of i think it could be there's actually a published case on that on that very similar set of facts because somebody allowed a young man a ten year old i think it was at the time to have a gun there is no dispute factually but ultimately there was  with this issue regarding the permission from mr hurley who was son about taking this car either before the accident or after the accident there was no permission given there is no facts in this case saying permission was ever given by mr there was no second crash and that's and that's really a good issue in this case there's no crash there's no proximate cause where's the proximate cause in the second incident there is none the restatement of torts regarding section three question that justice carter had in the phrase regarding the million currently i think that's an easy answer vivian wasn't the owner of the car since didn't wasn't the owner of the vehicle there is no negligent entrustment zero zip in this it's quite obvious that she should be dismissed from this case because there's no genuine issue of material that if she was made an edge in trust of the vehicle to her son and i find it kind of ironic too in this particular case that counsel keeps talking about ward judgment over and over and over again this is a poor judgement can't dictate whether or not somebody is going to take a vehicle and get into an accident at any particular day justice now i thought well it's kind of interesting both of us can argue the ira case in some respects and that's the three twenty seven eleven thirteen ninety five the if you think about the ira cases even though the seller of  motorcycle in that particular case didn't particularly know whether or not you drive or may have had to move in violation after moving relative to traffic tickets before the time you sold them the echo the courts said even if he didn't know even if the seller had known he had a moving violation and he had a ticket for not keeping his windows that still would have been enough because those incidences didn't involve her nationals just like the hurley case here entrustment and you feel after the accident we all know that there was an investigation inducted at the scene and at some point in time yet that afternoon later that day after they had been hunting that boy he was playing what i would call cops and robbers and thought the gun was on loan when in fact it was loaded he shot his friend importantly that way had never been ticketed for using a a facility where they allowed people with drug and alcohol problems to recover but they also had some hunting that went on there and i think that he's a significantly instruction instructor the ira cases as counsel mentioned was i think a significant case and actually just as late you wrote a dissent in that case that i think is instructive for us here today because even though the rule in that case shows that down that there wasn't enough because of the only license status in your dissent you said it's not just the unlicensed status that gentlemen it that in that case was not only on license but inexperienced and you would have come to the opposite conclusion if i were you counsel mid step back but that's the reality and i think you've got it right there unfortunately didn't have the votes but that was the reality in that case and i think that's what this case is really about last but not least the poor judgment comes i think is the hallmark of negligent trustee cases in illinois known garland the case of where the plane crash site and in my grief is an instructive as well because there was no tickets issued to anybody in the pilot in fact the facts are just the opposite the pilot in that case was very well experienced he was licensed by the f a a if the owner had some what i would call queasy feeling about is the pilot's ability obviously wasn't too significant because the owner got on the plane and then the pilot operating the plane in a bad weather crashes the pointing kills the owner and everybody board in that case there was no prior tickets there was no prior problems no direct evidence that this person had an individual problem with operating a plane it was just an uneasy feeling that was enough for negligent entrustment i think that speaks to the standard here the judgment here is dangerous to say that if you don't have moving violations and that's the rule in illinois use the slippery slope here it's not just moving violations it's not just tickets rather it is the display of poor judgment  but clearly an experienced individual operating gun had been hunting earlier that day so we not only knew how to fire a firearm yes obviously it was or at least a reasonable shot so we can go out there so this was somebody had experience and