Court Opinion

ID: 9582101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:22:24.099634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:26.543016
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the court’s remand of this case but I feel the issues to be dealt with on remand have not been adequately identified.
The superior court should first determine whether the sale of the car was completed at the time of the accident. Ownership of the car may not be irrelevant as the court asserts. Flieger v. Barcia, 674 P.2d 299, 301 (1983). The application of the doctrine of negligent entrustment to the sale of a car has not clearly been accepted in Alaska. Some jurisdictions have restricted the application to bailment situations, see Rush v. Smitherman, 294 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Civ.App.1956), while others have extended it to sales. See Johnson v. Casetta, 197 Cal.App.2d 272, 17 Cal.Rptr. 81 (1961). I feel this issue should be fully litigated on remand.
The second issue is properly identified as whether the Barcias or their agent acted negligently in this case. Flieger v. Barcia, 674 P.2d 299, 301 (1983). Assuming for the moment that negligent entrustment does apply to a sale, it is important to note, however, that when a sale is contemplated negligence may be treated differently than in a bailment situation. I think the level of inquiry for a seller may be less stringent than that for a bailor. The superior court may wish to consider the negligence issue in terms consistent with what a seller can reasonably be expected to know or learn about a buyer.