Vince v. Wilson
561 A.2d 103 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of negligent entrustment extends liability to any party who supplies a chattel, such as a vehicle, to a person whom the supplier knows or has reason to know is likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk. This liability is not limited to owners or those with a right to control the chattel but can include sellers and those who provide funding for the purchase.
Facts:
- Defendant Wilson was the grandaunt of an individual who did not have a driver's license and had failed the driver's test multiple times.
- Wilson was aware that her grandnephew abused alcohol and other drugs.
- Despite this knowledge, Wilson provided the funds for her grandnephew to purchase a vehicle.
- Wilson accompanied her grandnephew to Ace Auto Sales and informed the salesman, Gardner, that her grandnephew had no driver's license.
- Gardner, an agent for Ace Auto Sales, proceeded to sell a vehicle to the grandnephew.
- The grandnephew was later involved in an automobile accident which seriously injured the plaintiff, who was a passenger in the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendant Wilson in the trial court.
- Plaintiff subsequently added Ace Auto Sales, Inc. and its president Gary Gardner as defendants.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the court granted directed verdicts in favor of defendants Ace and Gardner.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against defendant Wilson.
- Defendant Wilson (appellant) appeals the judgment entered against her.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appeals the directed verdicts in favor of defendants Ace and Gardner (appellees).
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 the tort of negligent entrustment apply to a party who, lacking ownership or the right of control, knowingly supplies a vehicle or the funds to purchase it to a known incompetent driver?
Opinions:
Majority - Mahady, J.
Yes. The tort of negligent entrustment is not limited to those who own or control a vehicle but extends to anyone who supplies it to a person known to be an incompetent operator. The court explicitly adopts the broader rule found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390, which subjects a supplier of a chattel to liability for harm caused by a user whom the supplier knows or should know is likely to create an unreasonable risk. The court rejected the narrower line of cases requiring ownership or control, finding them to be poorly reasoned and criticized by leading commentators like Prosser and Keeton. The core of the tort is the negligent act of 'entrusting' or 'supplying,' not the defendant's legal relationship to the instrumentality. Therefore, the claims against Wilson (who supplied the funds) and Ace and Gardner (who supplied the car) were proper questions for a jury to decide based on evidence of their knowledge of the driver's incompetence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of negligent entrustment liability in Vermont by moving away from a strict property-based standard (ownership or control) to a more flexible, foreseeability-based negligence standard. It aligns Vermont law with the modern trend and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, establishing that sellers, donors, lenders, and others who facilitate the acquisition of a chattel can be held liable. The ruling creates a new avenue for recovery against parties like car dealerships or family members who knowingly enable an incompetent person to operate a dangerous instrumentality, thereby increasing their duty of care.
Unlock the full brief for Vince v. Wilson