 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Green v. Harris5/20/2003
se.
b. Under the facts presented, the appearance of only one parent's name on the car's title is not dispositive of the other parent's potential liability.
The parents also assert that the mother could not be held liable and that she had no ownership interest in the car, because her name was not on the title. Green contends that it is the right to possess and control the vehicle that is required to impose liability and not necessarily legal ownership. Under the facts presented, we agree.
Motor vehicle certificates of title in Oklahoma are documents of convenience and are not necessarily controlling of ownership of an automobile.*fn11 Similarly, liability for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle is not necessarily controlled by legal ownership of the vehicle. Although the doctrine of negligent entrustment is most often discussed in terms of ownership, in Shoemake v. Stich, 1975 OK 55, , 534 P.2d 667 we described it as:
"Shoemake's action against Stich for damages for personal injuries was based on the rule of law charging the owner of an automobile (Stich), or one having possession and control of an automobile, with liability for injury or damage resulting from the negligence of an incompetent, reckless, careless, or unqualified driver to whom the vehicle is entrusted by such person." (Emphasis supplied.)
Here, the evidentiary materials show that both parents exercised control over the car because they used driving privileges as a means of discipline. The father signed the financing for the car and made the payments. Although, both parents allege that the son was paying for the car and he was allegedly working for the father to earn the money, the mother didn't know exactly what it was he did or how much he was paid. When the evidence is presented at trial, a jury might determine that both parents may be liable because both parents were instrumental in furnishing the vehicle to their son and because the car was controlled by each of them.
CONCLUSION
To support an actionable claim for negligent entrustment of an automobile, the plaintiff must show that: a person who owns or has possession and control of an automobile allowed another driver to operate the automobile; the person knew or reasonably should have known that the other driver was careless, reckless and incompetent; and an injury was caused by the careless and reckless driving of the automobile.*fn12 The question of negligent entrustment is one of fact for the jury,*fn13 and may be proven by circumstantial as well as positive or direct evidence.*fn14 On the record presented, disputed facts and conflicting inferences from disputed facts might lead reasonable people to conclude that: 1) the parents knew or had reason to know that their son was likely to use the automobile in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others when the accident occurred; and 2) both parents were instrumental in furnishing the vehicle to their son and both parents controlled his use of the car. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|