Gadson Ex Rel. Gadson v. ECO Services of South Carolina, Inc.
648 S.E.2d 585, 374 S.C. 171, 2007 S.C. LEXIS 274 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for negligent entrustment of a vehicle, the plaintiff must prove the owner had knowledge that the driver was either addicted to intoxicants or had a habit of drinking and was likely to drive while intoxicated; knowledge that the driver consumed a minimal amount of alcohol on a single occasion is insufficient.
Facts:
- Joseph Jenkins, an employee of ECO Services, took a company vehicle for personal use after work hours.
- Jenkins picked up several passengers, including his cousin, John Jenkins, and Starr Gadson.
- At a store, John Jenkins purchased one or two wine coolers and shared them with another passenger.
- Approximately one hour later, Joseph Jenkins permitted John Jenkins to drive the vehicle.
- John Jenkins did not appear to be intoxicated to the other passengers, including Starr Gadson.
- While driving, John Jenkins reached a speed of 80 miles per hour, lost control of the vehicle, and crashed.
- Starr Gadson was thrown from the vehicle during the crash and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Starr Gadson (Respondent) sued ECO Services and Joseph Jenkins (Petitioner) in a South Carolina trial court, alleging negligence and negligent entrustment.
- A jury found Jenkins liable for negligently entrusting the vehicle to his cousin and awarded Gadson $50,000 in damages.
- Jenkins's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) were denied by the trial court.
- Jenkins, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Jenkins.
- Jenkins, as Petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of South Carolina to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 individual's knowledge that a driver consumed one or two alcoholic beverages over an hour before driving, without any other evidence of the driver's habits or intoxication, constitute sufficient evidence to support a claim for negligent entrustment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burnett
No. The evidence was insufficient to support a claim for negligent entrustment. The court declined to adopt the broader standard for negligent entrustment from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, instead applying the established South Carolina test from Jackson v. Price. This test requires proof that the entrustor knew or should have known the driver was addicted to intoxicants or had a habit of drinking and was likely to drive while intoxicated. The sole evidence here—that John Jenkins consumed part of one or two wine coolers over an hour before driving—does not meet this standard, as it fails to establish knowledge of a habit or addiction. The court also rejected the lower court's inferences that a familial relationship implies knowledge of character and that a defendant's failure to testify can substitute for the plaintiff's lack of evidence.
Concurring - Justice Pleicones
No. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to hold the petitioner liable even under the broader Restatement standard, this opinion argues that the court should adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 308 and 390 as alternative methods for proving negligent entrustment. The author expresses concern that the current South Carolina test from Jackson creates a potential loophole, as it might not impose liability on someone who entrusts a vehicle to a person they know is currently intoxicated but for whom they have no knowledge of a long-term drinking habit or addiction. Adopting the Restatement would close this gap in the law.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and narrows the legal standard for negligent entrustment in South Carolina, explicitly rejecting the broader, more plaintiff-friendly standard from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. By requiring proof of the entrustor's knowledge of the driver's habitual intoxication or addiction, the court sets a high bar for plaintiffs. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult to succeed on a negligent entrustment claim based solely on evidence of a driver's minimal alcohol consumption prior to an accident. The ruling emphasizes that specific knowledge of a pattern of behavior is required, rather than inferences based on a single event or a familial relationship.
