Jennings v. Edmo
766 P.2d 1272, 115 Idaho 391, 1988 Ida. App. LEXIS 170 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Idaho's owner liability statute, an owner's grant of unrestricted permission to a first permittee does not, by itself, create a chain of implied permission to a remote sub-permittee. For an owner to be liable for a sub-permittee's negligence, there must be a relationship or special circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference of the owner's consent to that person's operation of the vehicle.
Facts:
- Irene Edmo purchased a vehicle for her grandson, Boyd Gould, to use for her transportation and errands, giving him unrestricted use of it. Edmo's granddaughter, Linda Gould, was also a registered owner.
- On the evening of May 8, 1986, Boyd Gould was arrested for driving under the influence.
- At the scene of his arrest, Boyd Gould told the arresting officer that his passenger and girlfriend, Violena Waterhouse, could drive the car, and the officer allowed her to take possession of it.
- Boyd Gould remained incarcerated for the next four days.
- On the evening of May 9, Waterhouse met Dennis Hildreth at a bar and allowed him to operate the vehicle.
- While driving, Hildreth, who was intoxicated and had no license, collided with a vehicle driven by Randy Jennings, causing severe injuries to Jennings.
- Neither Irene Edmo, Linda Gould, nor Boyd Gould knew Dennis Hildreth.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Jennings sued driver Dennis Hildreth and vehicle owners Irene Edmo and Linda Gould in an Idaho district court (trial court) for damages from a vehicle accident.
- The owners, Edmo and Gould, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they were not liable because Hildreth did not have their permission to drive.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the owners, dismissing the complaint against them.
- The district court entered a final judgment against the driver, Hildreth.
- Jennings, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the owners to the Idaho 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:
Under Idaho Code § 49-1404, is a vehicle owner who grants unrestricted permission to a first permittee liable for the negligence of a third-level permittee who drives the vehicle for a 'joy ride' without any connection to the owner or first permittee?
Opinions:
Majority - Swanström, Judge
No. A vehicle owner is not liable under these circumstances. For an owner to be vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver, that driver must have the owner's express or implied permission. While a broad grant of authority to an initial permittee (Boyd Gould) might imply permission for a sub-permittee (Waterhouse) to drive under certain circumstances, such as for the benefit of the initial permittee, this implied permission does not extend indefinitely. Hildreth, a third-level permittee, had no relationship with the owners or Boyd Gould, and his use of the vehicle for a 'joy ride' served no purpose for them. The mere fact that the owner gave unrestricted use to the first permittee is insufficient to create an inference of implied permission for a remote, unknown driver.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of 'implied permission' under owner liability statutes, preventing the doctrine from creating an endless chain of vicarious liability. The court establishes that implied permission is not a transferable right that passes from one driver to the next without limitation. By requiring a tangible connection or circumstance linking the remote driver back to the owner's consent, the ruling protects owners from liability for the actions of unknown individuals who are several steps removed from the initial authorized user, thereby reinforcing the principle that liability must be grounded in a reasonable inference of the owner's consent.
