Bishop v. Morich
621 N.E.2d 43, 250 Ill.App.3d 366, 190 Ill. Dec. 174 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a parent to be liable under a theory of negligent entrustment, a plaintiff must show the parent gave the child implied permission to use the vehicle. Merely leaving car keys accessible or allowing limited, supervised use of a vehicle is insufficient to establish implied permission for unrestricted driving on public roads.
Facts:
- Donald and Margaret Morich left their 15-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, at home while they attended a wedding.
- Elizabeth did not have a driver's license and had not begun any driving instruction.
- The parents had previously allowed Elizabeth to start the family car to warm it up on cold mornings or move it within the driveway to wash it.
- Keys to the family car were regularly left on an open shelf in the kitchen.
- Elizabeth had never before been given permission to drive the family's cars on city streets.
- Elizabeth took the car keys from the shelf and drove the family car on public streets to a friend's house and a drugstore.
- Upon returning to the family driveway, Elizabeth's foot slipped from the brake to the accelerator.
- The vehicle struck and severely injured her friend, Julia Bishop, who was sitting next to the driveway.
Procedural Posture:
- Julia Bishop sued Elizabeth Morich for negligence and Elizabeth's parents, Donald and Margaret Morich, for negligent entrustment and supervision in an Illinois trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Donald and Margaret Morich on the negligent entrustment and supervision claims.
- The trial court subsequently denied Julia Bishop’s motion for a rehearing and reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence.
- Julia Bishop, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate appellate court. Donald and Margaret Morich are the appellees.
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 a parent's act of leaving car keys in an accessible location and allowing their unlicensed, underage child to occasionally start the car or move it within the family driveway constitute implied permission for the child to drive on public streets, thereby creating liability for negligent entrustment or supervision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cahill
No. A parent's conduct does not constitute implied permission for street driving where it is limited to leaving keys accessible and allowing a child to perform minor, supervised tasks like moving a car in a driveway. To establish negligent entrustment, the permission must be for the activity that caused the harm. The court reasoned that no reasonable person could infer from these limited, prior uses that Elizabeth had permission to drive on public streets when her parents were away. Similarly, for a claim of negligent supervision to succeed, the plaintiff must show that the parents were aware of specific prior instances of conduct that would put them on notice that the child was likely to engage in the harmful act. Here, the record contained no evidence that Elizabeth had ever driven on the street before or expressed an interest in doing so, meaning her parents had no notice of such a risk.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high evidentiary bar for establishing 'implied permission' in negligent entrustment cases involving parents and minor children. The ruling establishes that routine, limited, and supervised access to a vehicle does not, by itself, create a genuine issue of material fact for implied permission for general, unsupervised use. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in similar cases, requiring them to present more substantial evidence of parental acquiescence or a course of conduct that suggests permission for the specific type of use that led to the injury.
