Opinion ID: 160983
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negligent Hiring and Negligent Entrustment

Text: Plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent in hiring Mullins and in entrusting a company truck to him because defendant knew or should have known that Mullins suffered from sleep apnea and was at an increased risk of falling asleep on the job while driving. 11 As the district court noted, in order to survive summary judgment on either of these claims, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligent act of Mullins in falling asleep at the wheel. See DeMatteo v. Simon , 812 P.2d 361, 363 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (holding that to recover on claim of negligent entrustment, plaintiff must establish that (1) defendant entrusted its vehicle to the entrustee; (2) defendant knew or should have known that the entrustee was an incompetent driver; and (3) the entrustee’s incompetence caused the injury at issue); Valdez v. Warner , 742 P.2d 517, 520 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that for a plaintiff to recover on claim of negligent hiring, the negligent hiring of the employee must have been the proximate cause of the injury at issue). As set forth above, 11 There is no evidence in the record indicating that defendant knew or should have known that Mullins had heart problems or was at risk of suffering a fatal ventricular fibrillation. As a result, plaintiff has based her negligent entrustment and hiring claims solely on the evidence regarding Mullins’s sleep apnea and his alleged susceptibility to falling asleep while driving. -15- plaintiff’s evidence indicates only that it is possible that Mullins fell asleep at the wheel as a result of his sleep apnea. This is not sufficient to establish the requisite prima facie case of causation to support plaintiff’s negligent hiring and entrustment claims. Summary judgment on Count 4 in plaintiff’s first amended complaint was therefore proper.