Tort Law

Brien Roche

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Negligent Entrustment.  

1997 Haislip v. Southern Heritage Ins. Co., 254 Va. 265, 492 S.E.2d 135.

Virginia Code § 38.2-2204 requires insurance carrier not only to provide $25,000.00 in coverage for permissive user but also $25,000.00 in coverage for named insured who is guilty of negligent entrustment. As such, total payout by carrier could be $50,000.00 even though policy limits are $25,000.00.

1992 Turner v. Lotts, 244 Va. 554, 422 S.E.2d 765.

Parents allowed son to operate motor vehicle and he was subsequently involved in accident. Negligent entrustment allegation stated that son had received three prior traffic citations and had been involved in two prior accidents. In the past Supreme Court has recognized negligent entrustment cases in such instances where driver was physically or mentally impaired, was under influence of alcohol, or where car was defective. Neither of those conditions were met here. Motion for summary judgment was properly granted since as matter of law there is no basis upon which jury could conclude parents were negligent in this instance or that this negligence was proximate cause of accident.

1991 Hack v. Nester, 241 Va. 499, 404 S.E.2d 42.

Auto accident case. Correct test of liability for negligent entrustment is whether owner knew or had reasonable cause to know that he was entrusting his car to unfit driver likely to cause injury to others. In this case driver was unlicensed. Although it is negligence per se to entrust motor vehicle to unlicensed driver there can be no recovery for negligent entrustment unless reason for disqualification from securing license was proximate cause of collision. In this case, driver could have been licensed if he had simply reapplied. As such, his lack of license was not cause of collision. In addition, owner is negligent if he entrusts his vehicle to another person when owner knows or reasonably should have known that vehicle’s condition makes its normal operation unsafe. In this case, absence of one headlight was sufficient to create jury issue of negligent entrustment.

1972 Denby v. Davis, 212 Va. 836, 188 S.E.2d 226.

In negligent entrustment plaintiff must establish that this was cause of accident. In this case, there was sufficient evidence that it was driver’s defective eyesight that caused accident. Permission to operate may be either express or implied. Permission may be implied through pattern of conduct. Test is whether owner knew or had reason to know he was entrusting auto to unfit driver likely to cause injury.

1958 Laughlin v. Rose, 200 Va. 127, 104 S.E.2d 782.

Test of liability under doctrine of negligent entrustment is whether defendant knew or should have known that he was entrusting his vehicle to unfit driver likely to cause injury to others.

1950 McNeill v. Spindler, 191 Va. 685, 62 S.E.2d 13.

Test of liability of motor vehicle owner under doctrine of entrustment is whether owner knew, or had reasonable cause to know, that he was entrusting his motor vehicle to unfit driver likely to cause injury to others, and, in case of intoxication, there must be knowledge or imputable knowledge that person to whom vehicle is entrusted is addicted to use of intoxicants or has habit of drinking.

1948 Flanagan v. Kellam, 187 Va. 754, 48 S.E.2d 69.

Entrustment of motor vehicle to known incompetent driver may be negligence.