Court Opinion

ID: 9781446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:38:22.612512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:26.655965
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the outcome in this case, I do not agree with all that is said, and therefore I specially concur in the majority opinion.7 In this case, even if an issue of fact exists about whether Hook negligently entrusted his truck to the Harmons’ 18-year-old son, no evidence relates that negligent entrustment to the single-car wreck in which the son died and Hook was badly injured. There is no evidence that the son had been speeding or acting recklessly, which were some of the reasons his parents gave for asking Hook and his landlord not to allow their son to drive and for directing that all decisions regarding the son were to go up a “chain of command,” secretly headed by the father.
I specially concur because under our tort jurisprudence, there may be situations in which an entrustee may sue his entrustor for negligent entrustment, despite considerations of assumption of risk, proximate cause, and contributory negligence. I agree that this is not one of those cases, and therefore, I specially concur in the majority opinion.

 Because I do not agree with all that is said, this opinion is physical precedent only. Court of Appeals Rule 33 (a).