Dao v. Garcia ex rel. Estate of Salinas
2016 WL 164610, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 441, 486 S.W.3d 618 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the theory of negligent entrustment, an owner who gives implied permission for an unlicensed driver to use their car is derivatively liable for the driver's percentage of fault, which can trigger joint and several liability if the driver's fault exceeds the statutory threshold.
Facts:
- Khahn Dao and Tim Parks were business associates, friends, and had previously been roommates for two years.
- Dao had allowed Parks to drive her car on previous occasions, though testimony conflicted on whether this use was for business or personal reasons and on its frequency.
- One evening, Dao went to Parks's apartment, had dinner, and then fell asleep.
- While Dao was asleep, Parks took her car keys from her purse on the dining table without her express permission.
- Parks, who had been drinking wine since the early afternoon, drove Dao's car to a restaurant to pick up a friend.
- As Parks drove away from the restaurant, he collided with Rojelio Salinas Jr., who was riding a moped.
- Rojelio Salinas Jr. died from the injuries he sustained in the collision.
- At the time of the collision, Parks did not have a valid driver's license, a fact he had previously concealed from Dao by lying to her.
Procedural Posture:
- Elissa Garcia, on behalf of the estate of Rojelio Salinas Jr., and Rojelio Salinas Sr. sued Khahn Dao, Tim Parks, and Komali Restaurant in a Texas trial court.
- The suit alleged negligence claims, including a claim of negligent entrustment against Dao.
- Following a trial, a jury found Dao, Parks, and Komali negligent and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.
- The jury apportioned responsibility as follows: 85% to Parks, 10% to Dao, and 5% to Komali.
- Komali settled with the plaintiffs prior to the entry of the final judgment.
- The trial court entered a judgment ordering that Dao and Parks were jointly and severally liable for the remaining damages.
- Dao filed a motion for a new trial or to reform the final judgment, which was overruled by operation of law.
- Dao, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there legally sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding of negligent entrustment where implied permission is based on the parties' close relationship and history of prior use, and can the owner be held jointly and severally liable based on the driver's high percentage of apportioned fault?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lang-Miers
Yes, there is legally sufficient evidence for negligent entrustment, and the owner can be held jointly and severally liable. A jury can find implied permission for entrustment based on circumstantial evidence, such as a close relationship between the car's owner and the driver and a history of prior use. Although testimony conflicted, the jury was entitled to believe the driver's account that he had permission to use the car for personal needs, which established the element of entrustment. The jury could also reasonably infer that the owner, as a close friend, former roommate, and employer, 'should have known' the driver was unlicensed, satisfying another key element of the claim. Because negligent entrustment liability is derivative, the owner (Dao) is held responsible for the driver's (Parks's) 85% of the fault. This percentage exceeds the statutory threshold for joint and several liability, making her responsible for the combined damages assessed against her and Parks.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the power of circumstantial evidence in establishing the 'entrustment' element of a negligent entrustment claim, showing that a close relationship and a course of conduct can create implied permission even without express consent for a specific instance. It underscores the derivative nature of this tort, where the entruster's liability is directly tied to the driver's negligence. The most significant impact is its application of proportionate responsibility statutes, demonstrating how a defendant assigned a small percentage of direct fault (10%) can be held jointly and severally liable for almost the entire judgment because their derivative liability (85%) pushes them over the statutory threshold.
