Opinion ID: 1830916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court's grant of summary judgment for harreld chevrolet was error.

Text: ¶ 8. The Slighs argue that Harreld Chevrolet's Motion for Summary judgment should not have been granted because Harreld is liable for negligent entrustment; Harreld is liable for supplying Lorance with a dangerous instrumentality; and Harreld was a proximate cause of William Sligh's injuries. ¶ 9. The Slighs contend that the trial court's holding that a seller could not be liable for negligent entrustment because it no longer owned the vehicle at the time of the accident is not and never has been the law in Mississippi. ¶ 10. The Slighs argue that although title had passed to Gene Lorance, this fortuitous event did not absolve Harreld of liability. Citing Kahlenberg v. Goldstein, 290 Md. 477, 431 A.2d 76 (Md.App.1981), the Slighs argue that liability for negligent entrustment is not based upon the continued ownership of the chattel by the supplier, nor is it based upon the supplier's reservation either of the right to permit or the power to prohibit the use of the chattel. Instead, the supplier's liability is based upon his negligent entrustment when it operates together with the negligence of the user to become a concurrent cause of the injuries sustained. Id. ¶ 11. Further, the Slighs contend that the primary issue in this case is: What did Harreld know or have reason to know about Gene Lorance's incompetence to drive safely and the likelihood that he would operate the vehicle in such a manner as to involve an unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself or others. ¶ 12. The Slighs argue that they gave sufficient proof that Harreld knew, at the time of the sale, that Gene Lorance was an habitual drunkard and drug addict who suffered from mental problems; who had frequently been convicted of driving while intoxicated; and who had been involved in numerous motor vehicle accidents while drunk. Citing from the deposition of Gene Lorance, the Slighs further argue that Harreld Chevrolet should have known that Lorance was high on alcohol and crack over the two day period during which he purchased the pick-up in question from the dealership. ¶ 13. In their brief the Slighs offer that over sixty years ago, the Mississippi Supreme Court declared that an habitual drunkard is an incompetent driver. Slaughter v. Holsomback, 166 Miss. 643, 147 So. 318 (1933). ¶ 14. Since this is a case of first impression the Slighs cite cases from other jurisdictions holding that a cause of action for negligent entrustment exists against a car seller when the seller has reason to know that a prospective buyer is incompetent. See, Small v. St. Francis Hosp., 220 Ill. App.3d 537, 163 Ill.Dec. 203, 581 N.E.2d 154 (1991). ¶ 15. The Slighs contend that liability for negligent entrustment turns upon what the seller knew or should have known regarding the likelihood that the buyer would use the product entrusted to the detriment of another. Further, they contend that they have created a genuine issue as to what knowledge Harreld, through its agents and employees, possessed or should have possessed regarding Lorance's propensity to drive drunk. ¶ 16. The Slighs argue that Harreld is liable for supplying Lorance with a dangerous instrumentality. They contend that the law in Mississippi is clear that an automobile, although not usually a dangerous instrumentality, becomes one when driven by an incompetent driver. See Permenter v. Milner Chevrolet Co., 229 Miss. 385, 91 So.2d 243 (Miss.1956); Slaughter v. Holsomback, 166 Miss. 643, 147 So. 318, 322 (Miss.1933). Citing Roberts v. Williams, 302 F.Supp. 972, 987 (N.D.Miss. 1969), the Slighs contend that it has long been considered negligence for one to allow another to use an instrumentality with the knowledge that he will likely use that instrumentality in such a way to create an unreasonable risk of harm to another. ¶ 17. In the case at bar, the Slighs argue that Gene Lorance was obviously a member of a class, namely alcoholics, notoriously likely to misuse an automobile if allowed to drive one. The Slighs argue that Harreld should have known that Lorance was drunk and high on cocaine when he purchased the truck. Further it is argued that Harreld owed a duty of care not to provide a dangerous instrumentality to Lorance, a known habitual drunkard and is therefore liable for any injuries arising out of its entrustment of this dangerous instrumentality to Lorance whom Harreld, by its agent Presley, knew was a danger to himself and to others. ¶ 18. Arguing proximate cause, the Slighs contend this Court emphasizes the concept of putting in motion. The original actor will not be absolved of liability because of a supervening cause if his negligence put in motion the agency by or through which injuries were inflicted. M & M Pipe & Pressure Vessel Fabricators, Inc. v. Roberts, 531 So.2d 615, 618 (Miss. 1988). ¶ 19. The Slighs contend that the fact that the accident which injured William Sligh occurred more than two years after the sale of the vehicle to Lorance does not interrupt the negligence of Harreld or the agency it put in motion nor does it make the injury to the Slighs any less foreseeable. The agency which Harreld set in motion (i.e. Lorance operating a dangerous instrumentality while drunk), was still in motion, unchanged, on the day Lorance hit William Sligh's vehicle. Therefore, the actions of Harreld were a proximate cause of the injuries to William Sligh. For these reasons, the Slighs argue that summary judgment should not have been granted. ¶ 20. Appellee, Harreld, contends that in order for the Slighs to prevail under the theory of negligent entrustment, they must bring forth credible evidence that Harreld Chevrolet either knew or should have known that Gene Lorance was unfit or unable to operate a motor vehicle. Harreld states that the record in this case demonstrates that it did not know nor did it have reason to know that Lorance was incapable of operating the vehicle. In his deposition, Gene Lorance testified that he had a valid driver's license at the time of the purchase. ¶ 21. Harreld argues that to hold it liable in this case, this Court would have to find not only that Harreld owed a duty to determine who is and who is not a safe driver, but that Harreld must monitor the lifestyle of each and every customer to whom it sells a vehicle for the entire period of ownership. ¶ 22. Harreld contends that contrary to the assertions of the Slighs, Bob Presley, the truck manager of Harreld Chevrolet, testified that although he had known Gene Lorance for a number of years, he did not socialize with Lorance and was not aware of Lorance's reputation for abusing alcohol or that Lorance had undergone treatment for alcoholism. ¶ 23. Further, Harreld argues that there is simply no evidence presented by the Slighs that Harreld Chevrolet should have or even could have predicted that Lorance would become an unsafe driver and cause an accident two and one-half years after it sold him a vehicle. ¶ 24. Harreld relies on Horne v. Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc., 533 So.2d 261 (Fla.1988) for the proposition that an automobile dealership does not have the obligation or legal right to serve as an agent of the Department of Motor Vehicles to act as a secondary screening mechanism for detecting bad drivers. See Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. Pujol, 505 So.2d 560, 563 (Fla. 3 Dist. Ct.App.1987). ¶ 25. Harreld contends that there has been no proof whatsoever that Harreld knew or had reason to know that Gene Lorance would begin to drink heavily in the years following the sale of the truck, would drive his vehicle while drunk in violation of Mississippi law and after losing his license, cause the subject collision. ¶ 26. Harreld argues that the Sligh's reliance on Richton Tie & Timber Co. v. Smith, 210 Miss. 148, 48 So.2d 618 (1950) is misplaced. In Richton, Richton sold a Ford truck to Charlie Johnson. The sale was secured by Deed of Trust executed by Johnson which contained the following provision: It shall further become part of this instrument that Grantor [Johnson] will: (1) Haul masonite wood and/or load cars for and on behalf of beneficiary [Richton Tie & Timber], for which he shall receive the prevailing rates of compensation, and will not use or operate said truck for other purposes without the specific consent of the beneficiary . . . Id. ¶ 27. The Deed provided that in the event of default payment or the terms or conditions of the sale, Richton would retake possession of the truck and could satisfy the terms of the contract. Id. at 620. On January 9, 1949, Johnson and A.W. Turner were operating the truck at a speed in excess of 80 miles per hour. The truck crashed into a building owned by the appellees. The jury returned a verdict for the appellees in the amount of $6,500.00 and Richton Tie & Timber appealed. ¶ 28. In finding Richton liable, this Court recognized that where a supplier of a vehicle retains control over the vehicle, then the supplier cannot escape liability. Further, as the owner of the vehicle, Richton could have withdrawn the truck from Johnson's possession at any time. Harreld argues that by stating that Richton could have become wholly severed from the relations with Johnson and the truck in the event Johnson paid the note in full, the Supreme Court indicates that relinquishment of control also severs liability on the part of the former owner. Harreld contends that this case clearly supports its position in the case because it retained no ownership or control over the vehicle and clearly had no legal right to refuse control or possession. ¶ 29. Harreld argues that it cannot be held liable for placing a dangerous instrumentality in the hands of Lorance. First, the Slighs have not put on any evidence that Lorance was an incompetent driver at the time the vehicle was purchased. Gene Lorance held a valid drivers license at the time of purchase. Harreld argues that hold it liable under this theory, this Court would have to find that Harreld owed a duty not only to determine who is and who is not a safe driver, but also, that Harreld must continue to monitor the lifestyle of each and every customer to whom it sells a vehicle for the entire length of time that the person owns the vehicle. Harreld cites Roberts v. Auto Plan, Inc., 632 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994), for the proposition that under Florida law, once a bona fide sale has occurred, an automobile dealership cannot be held liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for a buyer's negligent operation of a vehicle. ¶ 30. Harreld argues that its sale of the vehicle to Lorance was not the proximate cause of the subject accident. Further, Harreld should not be held liable because it put into motion the events leading up to the accident because it ignores the fact that Mississippi Courts have consistently refused to hold sellers liable for damages inflicted by third persons, even where the product sold was the occasion of the act. See Robinson v. Howard Brothers of Jackson, Inc., 372 So.2d 1074 (Miss.1979). ¶ 31. Harreld asserts that the proximate cause of the subject accident was the negligence of Gene Lorance in driving his vehicle under the influence of alcohol, not the fact that Harreld Chevrolet sold a vehicle to Lorance two and one-half years prior to the date of the accident. For these reasons, Harreld contends that the lower court was correct in granting summary judgment. ¶ 32. The doctrine of negligent entrustment provides: One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for 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. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390. ¶ 33. We must first consider whether Harreld Chevrolet is a supplier of a chattel for purposes of § 390 of the Restatement. Suppliers in terms of the Restatement must have the right to control the chattel. Broadwater v. Dorsey, 344 Md. 548, 555, 688 A.2d 436 (1997). The paramount requirement for liability under the theory of negligent entrustment is whether or not defendant had a right to control the vehicle. Id. at 561, 688 A.2d 436. See Lopez v. Langer, 114 Idaho 873, 761 P.2d 1225, 1227 (1988); Casebolt v. Cowan, 829 P.2d 352, 359 (Colo.1992); Alioto v. Marnell, 402 Mass. 36, 520 N.E.2d 1284, 1286 (1988). ¶ 34. After the sale of the vehicle, Harreld Chevrolet had no control over it. The doctrine ought not be extended where the party sought to be charged had no control over the machine and the other party actually committing the injurious wrong was the owner, sui juris. Estes v. Gibson, 257 S.W.2d 604, 607-08 (Ky.1953). ¶ 35. In Horne v. Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc., 533 So.2d 261, respondent sold a car and allowed the purchaser to drive away with the car even though its agent salesman knew that the purchaser was an incompetent driver. Shortly after leaving the dealership, the purchaser was involved in a single-car accident which injured her passenger, petitioner Home. The issue presented in that case was whether under those circumstances the seller of a motor vehicle is liable under the theory of negligent entrustment. In holding that there was no liability the court reasoned: It is clear that under existing law there is no liability on the part of the seller of a motor vehicle where beneficial ownership or legal title, together with possession, have been transferred to a purchaser and injuries occur because of the negligence of the purchaser operating the vehicle. In short, transfer of ownership cuts off liability on the part of the former owner. Id. at 262. The Court declined to focus on the act of selling rather than transfer of legal title stating: First, we are not persuaded that it would be possible for the courts to circumscribe the cause of action to instances where the seller becomes aware of the purchaser's incompetency as a incidental by-product of the normal sales routine. Stripped from this mooring, the terms with knowledge and knowingly would become an added source of litigation placing a new and uncertain burden on commerce and ordinary business relationships. Sellers would find it necessary to protect themselves from liability by inquiring into and verifying the competency of the purchaser to operate the vehicle. Such a rule would be inconsistent with the proposition that [a] basic function of the law is to foster certainty in business relationships, not to create uncertainty by establishing ambivalent criteria for the construction of those relationships. Id. ¶ 36. Another question presented in this case is whether or not Harreld Chevrolet had the requisite knowledge of Lorance's drinking habits and that he would likely endanger a third party. There is no evidence in the record which would indicate that Harreld Chevrolet had knowledge of Lorance's drinking habits. Harreld Chevrolet sold a truck to Lorance and no further relationship existed between the two. A review of the record shows no evidence that Lorance appeared at the dealership in a drunken state. Further at the time of the purchase he possessed a valid drivers license. There is no causal connection between the sale of the automobile and the accident which occurred two and one-half years later. ¶ 37. Finding no liability for negligent entrustment; no liability for supplying a dangerous instrumentality; and no proximate cause, the lower court was proper in granting summary judgment.