Ali v. Fisher
2004 Tenn. LEXIS 661, 145 S.W.3d 557, 2004 WL 1888305 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of negligent entrustment is a theory of direct, not vicarious, liability; therefore, an entrustor's liability is not imputed from the entrustee but is based on the entrustor's own negligence, which must be compared and apportioned with the fault of other tortfeasors under comparative fault principles.
Facts:
- Thomas Scheve and Eric Fisher were coworkers who socialized, drank, and smoked marijuana together.
- Fisher had a history of substance abuse and a suspended driver's license, facts he claimed were well-known among their mutual friends and coworkers.
- Scheve went out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday and loaned his car and apartment to Fisher.
- Scheve instructed Fisher that he could use the car if in a bind but not to drive it if he was 'messed up.'
- On November 25, 2000, Fisher consumed at least eight beers, smoked marijuana, and took pills, resulting in a blood-alcohol content of 0.21%.
- While driving Scheve's car, Fisher fled from police at speeds over 100 miles per hour.
- Fisher then ran a red light and crashed into a vehicle driven by Jasmine Ali.
- Ali suffered severe injuries as a direct result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Jasmine Ali sued Eric Fisher (driver) and Thomas Scheve (owner) in a Tennessee trial court for damages arising from a car accident.
- A jury found Fisher 80% at fault and Scheve 20% at fault, awarding $500,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court initially entered a judgment apportioning damages according to the jury's fault allocation.
- Upon Ali's motion to alter or amend, the trial court entered an amended judgment holding Scheve vicariously liable for 100% of the total damages.
- Scheve, as appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the amended judgment and reinstated the original judgment that apportioned damages based on fault.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review of the case, with Ali as the appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an owner's negligent entrustment of a vehicle to another person result in vicarious liability for the driver's negligence, thereby making the owner fully liable for all resulting damages?
Opinions:
Majority - E. Riley Anderson, J.
No, an owner's negligent entrustment of a vehicle does not result in vicarious liability for the driver's negligence. The owner's liability stems from their own direct negligence in entrusting the vehicle, and fault must be allocated between the owner-entrustor and the driver-entrustee based on comparative fault principles. The court reasoned that negligent entrustment is an independent tort, separate and distinct from the negligent operation of the vehicle. The entrustor's negligence occurs at the moment control is relinquished to an incompetent person. Imposing full liability on the entrustor would contradict Tennessee's system of comparative fault established in McIntyre v. Balentine, which aims to link liability to one's degree of fault. The court adopted the reasoning of the Kansas Supreme Court in McCart v. Muir, holding that the respective fault of the entrustor and entrustee should be determined separately by the jury and damages apportioned accordingly.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that negligent entrustment in Tennessee is a theory of direct, not vicarious, liability, reinforcing the state's commitment to a pure comparative fault system. It clarifies that an entrustor's liability is capped at their own percentage of fault, preventing plaintiffs from holding a minimally-at-fault owner liable for 100% of the damages caused primarily by the driver. This precedent ensures that juries must separately assess the distinct negligent acts—the act of entrusting and the act of driving—and apportion fault accordingly, thereby limiting the scope of liability for owners who lend their property.
Unlock the full brief for Ali v. Fisher