Evans v. Allen Auto Rental & Truck Leasing Co.

• Decision Date: 12 September 1977
• Docket Number: No. 59887,59887
• Citation: 555 S.W.2d 325
• Parties: Kevin E. EVANS, Respondent, v. ALLEN AUTO RENTAL AND TRUCK LEASING, INC., Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 325

555 S.W.2d 325

Kevin E. EVANS, Respondent, v. ALLEN AUTO RENTAL AND TRUCK LEASING, INC., Appellant.

No. 59887.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Sept. 12, 1977.

Max W. Foust, Kansas City, for Kevin E. Evans, respondent.

Roy A. Larson and Laurence R. Tucker, Morris, Larson, King, Stamper & Bold, Kansas City, for Allen Auto Rental & Truck Leasing, Inc., appellant.

DONNELLY, Judge.

This is a "negligent entrustment" case.

In June, 1972, Allen Auto Rental leased a pickup truck to Bruce E. Conrad. On October 2, 1972, Conrad, while operating the truck leased to him by Allen Auto Rental, collided with a motorcycle on which Kevin E. Evans was a passenger. Evans sued Conrad and Allen Auto Rental and obtained a judgment in the amount of $137,500 against Conrad and Allen Auto Rental. Allen Auto Rental appealed to the Kansas City District of the Court of Appeals where the judgment was affirmed. The cause was then transferred to this Court by this Court and will be decided here "the same as on original appeal." Mo.Const. Art. V, § 10.

In Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724, 732 (Mo.banc 1968), this Court spoke of "negligent entrustment" as follows:

". . . We refer, by way of analogy, to the line of authorities holding that the owner of a car may be liable if he, knowingly or having the means of knowledge, turns his car over to a driver who is incompetent by reason of age, inexperience, habitual recklessness or otherwise; such liability further depends upon a finding that the act of the owner concurs with the negligence of the driver as a proximate cause of the injury. Thomasson v. Winsett, Mo.App., 310 S.W.2d 33; Dinger v. Burnham, 360 Mo. 465, 228 S.W.2d 696; Saunders v. Prue, 235 Mo.App. 1245, 151 S.W.2d 478; Lix v. Gastian, Mo.App., 261 S.W.2d 497; Ritchie v. Burton, Mo.App., 292 S.W.2d 599; 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles, § 573, p. 125; Restatement of Torts, Vol. 2, § 390, and illustrations listed at p. 316; 36 A.L.R. note, loc. cit. 1148; 68 A.L.R. note, loc. cit. 1013; 100 A.L.R. note, loc. cit. 923."

In 2 Restatement, Law of Torts, Second, § 390, it is stated:

"One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them."

In Woods, Negligent Entrustment, Evaluation of Frequently Overlooked Source of Additional Liability, 20 Arkansas Law Review 101, 102 (1966), the following are said to be necessary ingredients in an entrustment case:

"(1) Proof that the entrustee was incompetent, inexperienced or reckless; (2) that the entrustor 'knew or had reason to know' of the entrustee's condition or proclivities; (3) that there was an entrustment of the chattel; (4) that the entrustment created an appreciable risk of harm to the plaintiff and a relational duty on the part of the defendant; (5) that the harm to the plaintiff was 'proximately' or 'legally' caused by the negligence of the defendant."

We have reviewed the above, and other authorities, and now conclude and hold that the essential elements which must be shown in order to invoke the doctrine of "negligent entrustment" are:

(1) that the entrustee is incompetent by reason of age, inexperience, habitual recklessness or otherwise;

(2) that the entrustor knew or had reason to know of the entrustee's incompetence;

(3) that there was an entrustment of the chattel; and

(4) that the negligence of the entrustor concurred with the conduct of the entrustee as a proximate cause of the harm to plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Instruction No. 2 reads as follows:

"Your verdict must be for plaintiff against defendant Allen Auto Rental and Truck Leasing, Inc. if you believe:

"First, defendant leased the 1972 Chevrolet Pick-up Truck to Bruce E. Conrad, and

"Second, at the time defendant leased the 1972 Chevrolet Pick-up Truck to Bruce E. Conrad it knew or should have known that he was an habitually negligent driver, and

"Third, that in leasing the 1972 Chevrolet Pick-up Truck to Bruce E. Conrad defendant was thereby negligent, and

"Fourth, that Bruce E. Conrad thereafter permitted the 1972 Chevrolet Pick-up Truck to come into collision with the rear of the motorcycle upon which plaintiff was riding as a passenger,...