Opinion ID: 6335188
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: negligence by ean

Text: Petitioners also appeal the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment to EAN on their negligence claim, 45 arguing that they have offered evidence that EAN failed to conduct its business as a prudent rental car company would because it (1) provides no uniform guidance to its various branches regarding the renting and “switching out” of vehicles; (2) does not require its employees to adhere to the guidelines that do exist; (3) and did not train Mr. Bradshaw on the issue of driver fatigue. EAN responds that “under West Virginia law, a vehicle owner’ s liability for the negligent acts of the vehicle’s operator sounds only in negligent entrustment.” Petitioners reply that the evidence they offer in response to EAN’s motion for summary judgment is unrelated to Mr. Bradshaw’s entrustment of the Explorer to Mr. Herrera and that his direct negligence claim serves as an independent theory of liability. “No action for negligence will lie without a duty broken,” 46 and “[w]hether there is a duty of care owed to another is a question that must be determined as a matter of law by the court.”47 In view of those precepts, the question presented by Petitioners’ direct negligence claim becomes what duty of care is owed by the owner of a motor vehicle (EAN) to third parties such as T.M., C.M., and Haylie Hammett who are injured by the negligent or reckless operation of the owner’s vehicle by a permissive user (Mr. Herrera)? That question was answered in Payne: the owner of a motor vehicle owes to third parties a duty to refrain from entrusting his motor vehicle “to a person whose incompetency, inexperience, or recklessness is known or should have been known by the owner.” That is, the vehicle owner owes the third party a limited duty not to entrust his vehicle to a person whom he knows (or should know) “is so incompetent as to the handling of same as to convert it into a dangerous instrumentality[.]” 48 In view of that limited duty, Petitioners’ general negligence claim against EAN fails as a matter of law. While Petitioners scrupulously avoid the word “entrust” in the list of facts they contend support their negligence claim—they use “release”—their theory is clear: had EAN implemented uniform policies, required employees to follow them, and trained Mr. Bradshaw on driver fatigue, then Mr. Bradshaw would not have entrusted the Explorer to Mr. Herrera. The general duty of care assumed by that theory does not account for Petitioners’ position relative to EAN. That matters because 45 See Hersh v. E-T Enterprises, Ltd. P’ship, 232 W. Va. 305, 310, 752 S.E.2d 336, 341 (2013) (superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Tug Valley Pharmacy, LLC v. All Plaintiffs Below In Mingo County, 253 W. Va. 283, 773 S.E. 2d 627 (2015)). 46 Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Parsley v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 167 W. Va. 866, 280 S.E.2d 703 (1981). 47 Yourtee v. Hubbard, 196 W. Va. 683, 689, 474 S.E.2d 613, 619 (1996). 48 Gardiner v. Solomon, 75 So. 621, 623 (Ala. 1917). Payne cited Gardiner with approval. See Payne, 147 W. Va. at 371, 127 S.E.2d at 738. 15 to form the basis for a valid cause of action, this [general duty] must be brought home to the particular plaintiff, for “a duty owing to everybody can never become the foundation of an action until some individual is placed in position which gives him particular occasion to insist upon its performance . . .”[49] Brought home to Petitioners, EAN’s duty is limited to that provided for in Payne: to refrain from entrusting a motor vehicle “to a person whose incompetency, inexperience, or recklessness is known or should have been known by the owner.” 50 As detailed above, the evidence proffered by Petitioners in support of their appeal from the circuit court order granting summary judgment to EAN does not raise a genuine issue of material fact that Mr. Bradshaw knew or should have known that Mr. Herrera was incompetent to operate a vehicle safely when Mr. Bradshaw entrusted the Explorer to him on March 21. For those reasons, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to EAN on Petitioners’ direct negligence claim. 51