Opinion ID: 885165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pamela

Text: ¶ 9 McGinnis' complaint alleged that, on the morning of March 10, 1992, Danielle was supposed to be in school but was not, that Pamela knew Danielle was not in school and that Pamela knowingly and negligently persisted in permitting [Danielle] to run around in unsupervised fashion and be truant from school. He further alleged that Pamela's negligence in this regard was a direct and proximate cause of the high-speed car chase which resulted in his injuries. Although the complaint does not specifically so state, McGinnis contended in the District Court that his claim against Pamela was that she negligently entrusted the use of the Mercury to Danielle. ¶ 10 We previously have recognized two theories on which a negligent entrustment claim may be based. See Williams v. State Medical Oxygen & Supply (1994), 265 Mont. 111, 114, 874 P.2d 1225, 1227. One theory of negligent entrustment provides that the owner or one in control of a thing and responsible for its use who is negligent in entrusting it to another can be held liable for such negligent entrustment. Williams, 265 Mont. at 114-15, 874 P.2d at 1227 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 308(1965)); see also Bahm v. Dormanen (1975), 168 Mont. 408, 411, 543 P.2d 379, 381. The second theory provides that a person who supplies a chattel to another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know is likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm is subject to liability for the resulting physical harm. Williams, 265 Mont. at 114, 874 P.2d at 1227 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965)). McGinnis' arguments that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to Pamela implicate both theories of negligent entrustment. ¶ 11 McGinnis initially argues that there were genuine issues of material fact that Pamela owned or had control of the Mercury and negligently entrusted its use to Danielle. This argument falls under the first negligent entrustment theory discussed above. In order for a person to be liable under this theory, the person must be the owner, or in control, of the vehicle and negligently entrust that vehicle to another. Williams, 265 Mont. at 114-15, 874 P.2d at 1227; Bahm, 168 Mont. at 411, 543 P.2d at 381. With regard to the extent of control over a vehicle necessary to establish such a negligent entrustment claim, it is clear that the basis of negligent entrustment is founded on control which is greater than physical power to prevent [use of the vehicle]. A superior if not exclusive legal right to the object is a precondition to the imposition of the legal duty. Bahm, 168 Mont. at 412, 543 P.2d at 382. ¶ 12 Pamela moved for summary judgment on the basis that she neither owned nor had control of the Mercury. In support of her motion, Pamela submitted her affidavit stating that the Mercury was owned by Alexander Aldridge, that she had not given Danielle permission to use the vehicle on March 10, 1992, and that she did not have the right to give such permission to use the vehicle. Under Bahm, Pamela's affidavit was sufficient to establish the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding her lack of ownership or control of the Mercury. ¶ 13 Pamela having satisfied her initial burden as the party moving for summary judgment, McGinnis was required to come forward with substantial evidence  such as affidavits or other sworn testimony  which raised genuine issues of material fact. See Herron, 284 Mont. at 194, 943 P.2d at 1275(citation omitted). To that end, McGinnis submitted his own affidavit which he contends raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Pamela had control over the vehicle and whether she entrusted the vehicle to Danielle. The affidavit states that McGinnis had often observed Danielle and her friends driving the Mercury around East Helena and that no one had ever reported the vehicle as being missing or stolen. McGinnis further stated that, to his knowledge, Pamela had never complained to the East Helena Police Department or the Montana Highway Patrol that she had a problem with Danielle using the vehicle without permission and that [e]very aspect of my investigation revealed that ... Danielle ... had possession of the vehicle with the full knowledge and permission of her mother, Pamela Aldridge. ¶ 14 The problem with McGinnis' affidavit, however, is that it contains no evidence that Pamela actually owned or controlled the Mercury. Nor does the affidavit establish that Pamela had [a] superior if not exclusive legal right to the vehicle as compared to Danielle. See Bahm, 168 Mont. at 412, 543 P.2d at 382. Although McGinnis argues that Pamela had the power to withhold the use of the vehicle from her daughter, the power to prevent the use of a vehicle is not sufficient to establish the control necessary for a negligent entrustment claim. See Bahm, 168 Mont. at 412, 543 P.2d at 382. Given the Bahm requirements for a negligent entrustment claim, we conclude that McGinnis' affidavit does not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding Pamela's ownership or control of the vehicle. ¶ 15 McGinnis also asserts, however, that his affidavit raises a genuine issue of material fact that Danielle was using the Mercury on March 10, 1992, with Pamela's permission and that this is sufficient to preclude summary judgment on his negligent entrustment claim against Pamela. In essence, this is an argument under the second of the negligent entrustment theories discussed above which provides that a person may be held liable for damages when he or she supplies a chattel to another whom the supplier knows or should have known was likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm. See Williams, 265 Mont. at 114, 874 P.2d at 1227. Stated differently, McGinnis' contention is that, by giving Danielle permission to use the Mercury, Pamela supplied her with the vehicle. ¶ 16 Pamela's affidavit states that she did not give Danielle permission to use the Mercury on March 10, 1992, thereby establishing the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether she supplied Danielle with the Mercury. Pamela having satisfied her initial burden, McGinnis was required to come forward with substantial evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that Pamela did supply the Mercury to Danielle. ¶ 17 In that regard, McGinnis asserts that the portions of his affidavit set forth above raise issues of fact regarding whether Pamela gave Danielle permission to use  that is, supplied her with  the Mercury. We disagree. McGinnis' observation of Danielle driving the vehicle around East Helena on previous occasions does not establish that she had Pamela's permission to do so, on either the previous occasions or March 10, 1992. Nor does the absence of stolen vehicle reports or complaints by Pamela regarding Danielle's use of the vehicle establish that Pamela gave Danielle permission to use the Mercury on any occasion. ¶ 18 Furthermore, the statement in McGinnis' affidavit that [e]very aspect of [his] investigation revealed that Danielle was using the vehicle with Pamela's knowledge and permission does not raise a genuine issue of material fact. The party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence of a substantial nature; mere denial, speculation, or conclusory statements are not sufficient. Klock v. Town of Cascade (1997), 284 Mont. 167, 174, 943 P.2d 1262, 1266. Here, the affidavit does not state facts revealed by McGinnis' investigation which would establish that Pamela gave Danielle permission to use the vehicle. Thus, the statement is conclusory only and does not constitute evidence of a substantial nature which raises a genuine issue of material fact. We conclude that McGinnis' affidavit does not establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that Pamela gave Danielle permission to use the Mercury, thereby supplying Danielle with the vehicle, on March 10, 1992.