Opinion ID: 4439596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Negligent-Entrustment Claim

Text: {¶ 16} As with the negligence claim, Rieger argues, and the court of appeals agreed, that Giant Eagle’s knowledge of the 117 prior incidents involving motorized carts in its stores and Giant Eagle’s failure to provide instruction were sufficient to establish a claim of negligent entrustment. Again, the record contains no evidence of causation. {¶ 17} To establish a claim for negligent entrustment involving the operation of a motorized vehicle, the plaintiff must show that the vehicle was operated with permission of the owner, that the driver of the vehicle was incompetent to operate it, and that the owner of the vehicle knew—either through actual knowledge or through knowledge implied from known facts at the time of the entrustment—that the driver was unqualified or incompetent to operate the vehicle. Gulla v. Straus, 154 Ohio St. 193, 93 N.E.2d 662 (1950), paragraph three of the syllabus. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that the vehicle owner’s 8 January Term, 2019 negligent entrustment caused the plaintiff’s injury. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. White, 122 Ohio St.3d 562, 2009-Ohio-3718, 913 N.E.2d 426, ¶ 36. The failure to prove any one of these elements is fatal to a claim of negligent entrustment. {¶ 18} As we observed regarding the negligence claim, despite the fact that Giant Eagle does not provide training for its customers who use the motorized carts, there is no evidence that training would have prevented the accident in this case. In fact, the trial court had evidence before it that Kurka had been driving the motorized carts for well over a year, drove them on a regular basis, and had no accidents prior to the accident in this case. Mr. Kurka testified that his wife had been diagnosed with dementia prior to the accident; however, Rieger did not present any evidence, expert or otherwise, that Kurka’s dementia rendered her incompetent to operate the motorized cart or that her dementia caused the accident. And even if Kurka’s dementia was somehow a contributing factor to the accident, Rieger did not present any evidence that Kurka’s dementia was discernable. Again, because there is no evidence of causation to support a claim of negligent entrustment, the trial court should have granted Giant Eagle’s motion for a directed verdict on Rieger’s claim of negligent entrustment. We therefore do not need to decide whether Rieger presented sufficient evidence establishing the remaining elements of negligent entrustment.