Opinion ID: 1964006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Morrell Appeal

Text: Under the view which we take as regards the issue of negligent entrustment, a consideration of Morrell's other contentions is unnecessary. The Maryland Motor Vehicle Law is found in Code (1957, 1970 Repl. Vol.) Art. 66 1/2. Section 6-305 of that article, in effect on the date of the accident with which we are here concerned, provided: No person shall authorize or knowingly permit a motor vehicle owned by him or under his control (1) to be driven upon any highway by any person who is not authorized hereunder or (2) in violation of any of the provisions of this subtitle. [2] It should be noted that this is a criminal sanction, the violation of which constituted a misdemeanor under § 17-101 (a). Maryland has adopted the doctrine of negligent entrustment as stated in 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 at 314 (1965): One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them. (emphasis supplied) In short, the doctrine requires scienter and has been applied in cases involving automobiles where the owner knew or should have known that the use of the entrusted car by the entrustee would likely involve unreasonable risk, Curley v. General Valet Service, Inc., 270 Md. 248, 311 A.2d 231 (1973); Snowhite v. State ex rel. Tennant, 243 Md. 291, 221 A.2d 342 (1966); Rounds v. Phillips, 166 Md. 151, 170 A. 532 (1933). Morrell argues that there was insufficient evidence to permit the issue of negligent entrustment to go to the jury, and that his motion for a directed verdict in his favor should have been granted. We agree. The critical point is that a violation of § 6-305 of the Motor Vehicle Code requires proof that the vehicle owner authorized the use of a motor vehicle by a person whom he knew to be without a license, while the doctrine of negligent entrustment may be invoked only against the vehicle owner who knows or should have known that the use would involve an inordinate risk of physical harm. In Curley, supra, the employer knew of the driver's traffic record; in Snowhite, supra, the employer knew of the driver's intemperate drinking, and in Rounds, supra, the parents knew of their son's reckless driving and accident record. In our view, the case before us is not controlled by these cases, but may be likened to U-Haul Co. v. Rutherford, 10 Md. App. 373, 270 A.2d 490 (1970), where the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the lessor of an automobile was entitled to a directed verdict in its favor when the evidence showed that although it leased a truck to an unlicensed driver, it neither knew nor had reason to know that the license exhibited by the lessee was not his own, compare U-Haul Co. v. Rutherford, supra , with Tri-State Equipment Co. v. Stauffer, 24 Md. App. 221, 330 A.2d 680 (1975). So far as Morrell knew, Worsham was an experienced driver who had a driver's license. Worsham told Morrell that he had a driver's license, that he had driven automobiles in Maryland before going into the army, that after entering the army in 1968 he had undergone driver's training at Fort Dix, that he had driven army vehicles at Fort Dix, that he had driven army trucks in Vietnam for nearly a year, and that after returning to Fort Meade in Maryland, he had driven army vehicles on Maryland highways. [3] Because Morrell's motion for a directed verdict should have been granted, the judgments against him in favor of Mrs. Williams as personal representative for $20,000.00, and in favor of Mrs. Williams as wrongful death beneficiary for $30,000.00 will be reversed. For the same reason we shall not disturb the order sustaining Morrell's demurrer to the wrongful death claim of Raynetta Renee Fowlkes, because the same result would have obtained had a directed verdict been entered in his favor.