Hays v. Royer
384 SW 3d 330 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, an entrustee who is injured as a result of their own incompetence may bring a negligent entrustment claim against the entrustor, even when no third party is harmed.
Facts:
- Scott Hays was an employee and part-owner of Royer Hays Funeral Services, LLC, a business controlled by Francis and Barbara Royer (collectively, 'Royer').
- Royer knew Hays was habitually intoxicated, had received inpatient treatment for alcoholism, and had a history of drinking at work and driving the company van after drinking.
- Royer's employees had previously found Hays passed out at work from intoxication, and Pete Royer had held discussions with Hays about his drinking problem.
- Royer entrusted Hays with a company van.
- On the day of the accident, Hays drove the company van to a bar, where he became intoxicated.
- While driving home from the bar, Hays was involved in a single-vehicle accident and was killed.
- No other person or vehicle was involved in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Brody Hays and Heather Hays, the son and wife of the decedent Scott Hays, filed a wrongful death petition alleging negligent entrustment against Royer in a Missouri circuit court (the court of first instance).
- Royer filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The circuit court granted Royer's motion and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Brody Hays and Heather Hays (Appellants) appealed the circuit court's dismissal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, where Royer was the Appellee.
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 Missouri law permit the estate of an entrustee to bring a negligent entrustment claim against the entrustor for the entrustee's death when no third party was injured and the entrustee's own negligence contributed to the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Karen King Mitchell
Yes. A cause of action for negligent entrustment may be stated by the entrustee himself, or his estate. The court reasoned that the foreseeability of harm to the entrustee is sufficient to establish a duty of care on the part of the entrustor. The court found persuasive support in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390, which allows for entrustor liability to the estate of an intoxicated entrustee. Crucially, the court distinguished Missouri's 'pure comparative fault' system from 'contributory negligence' jurisdictions; under pure comparative fault, the entrustee's own negligence reduces their recovery but does not act as a complete bar to bringing a claim. The fortuity that no third party was injured does not negate the entrustor's duty or breach.
Analysis:
This decision officially recognizes a first-party cause of action for negligent entrustment in Missouri, aligning the state with the Restatement and other jurisdictions with comparative fault systems. It establishes that an entrustor's duty of care extends to the entrustee, not just to potential third-party victims. The ruling emphasizes foreseeability of harm to the entrustee as the key to establishing duty, preventing an entrustor from escaping liability simply because the incompetent entrustee's negligence luckily did not injure anyone else. This creates a clear precedent that will allow similar claims to proceed, potentially shifting some financial responsibility for self-inflicted injuries to parties who knowingly supplied the dangerous instrumentality.
Unlock the full brief for Hays v. Royer