Joseph v. Dickerson
754 So. 2d 912, 2000 WL 41250 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vehicle owner does not commit the tort of negligent entrustment by loaning their vehicle to a licensed, competent driver whom the owner knows is specifically excluded from their automobile liability insurance policy, as the duty is to prevent an unreasonable risk of physical harm, not to ensure financial responsibility.
Facts:
- Judith Dickerson owned an automobile and procured an insurance policy from Midland Risk Insurance Company.
- To obtain a reduced premium, Judith signed a named driver exclusion endorsement that specifically excluded her 19-year-old daughter, Christina Dickerson, from any coverage.
- Christina lived in the same household as her mother, Judith.
- On June 19, 1996, Judith was unable to leave her job and asked Christina to use her car to drive Christina's great-grandmother to a doctor's appointment.
- While driving Judith's car on this errand, Christina collided with a vehicle driven by Andrew Joseph at an intersection in New Orleans.
- The collision caused injuries to Andrew Joseph and damage to the vehicle he was driving, which was owned by his mother, Linda Joseph.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda and Andrew Joseph (plaintiffs) filed a petition against Judith Dickerson, Christina Dickerson, and Midland Risk Insurance Company in the First City Court for the Parish of Orleans.
- The trial court found Christina and Judith Dickerson liable in solido for damages, but dismissed the claims against the insurer, Midland Risk.
- The Josephs and Judith Dickerson appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding Judith's liability on a negligent entrustment theory and affirming the dismissal of the insurer.
- Judith Dickerson and the Josephs both applied for, and were granted, writs of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 vehicle owner commit negligent entrustment by loaning their car to a licensed, competent adult driver whom the owner knows is specifically excluded from the owner's liability insurance policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Calogero, Chief Justice
No. A vehicle owner is not liable for negligent entrustment for loaning a car to a competent driver who is known to be excluded from the owner's insurance policy. The tort of negligent entrustment requires that the owner knew or should have known the person borrowing the car was likely to use it in a manner involving an unreasonable risk of physical harm due to factors like youth, inexperience, intoxication, or incompetence. Christina was a licensed adult, and there was no evidence she was an incompetent or risky driver. Her exclusion from the insurance policy created a risk of financial unrecoverability, not a risk of physical harm, and therefore Judith did not breach her duty of care. The court also rejected vicarious liability on a 'mission' theory, finding that Christina was a non-servant mandatary performing a gratuitous family service, which is insufficient to impute her negligence to her mother.
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
The majority erred by failing to recognize an agency relationship that would make Judith Dickerson vicariously liable. Christina was not ordinarily allowed to drive the vehicle but was specifically instructed by Judith to take her great-grandmother to the doctor because Judith had to work. By acting on behalf of her mother to perform this specific task, Christina was on a mission for Judith. This principal-agent relationship should make Judith vicariously liable for the damages caused by Christina's negligence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the negligent entrustment tort in Louisiana by distinguishing between a driver's operational competence and their insurance status. The holding establishes that the 'unreasonable risk' element of the tort pertains to the physical risk of a crash, not the financial risk of an uncompensated victim. This decision protects vehicle owners from tort liability for the common practice of loaning a car to an uninsured but otherwise safe driver. It reinforces that the basis of negligent entrustment is a foreseeable risk of physical harm, not a failure to guarantee financial solvency.
