Vince v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Vermont · 1989 · Torts

TortsNegligent entrustmentnegligent entrustmentsupplier liabilitysale of chattelfunding purchaseincompetent driverknowledge or reason to know

Facts

Wilson provided money so her grandnephew could purchase the car involved in the accident in which plaintiff was injured as a passenger. Evidence, viewed favorably to plaintiff, showed Wilson knew the driver had no license, had failed the driver's test several times, and abused alcohol and other drugs, and that she communicated the licensing information to Gardner before the sale. Ace sold the vehicle to the driver, and Gardner acted as the salesman. The evidence also tended to show that the driver's inexperience and lack of training contributed to the accident.

Issue

Does negligent entrustment apply only when the defendant owns or retains a right to control the chattel, or can it also apply to a person who funds another's purchase of a vehicle and to a seller who supplies a vehicle, when they know or have reason to know the user is incompetent? Also, was there sufficient evidence to submit the claims against Wilson, Ace, and Gardner to the jury?

Rule

A negligent entrustment claim is governed by traditional negligence principles and is not limited to defendants who retain ownership or a right to control the instrumentality after transfer. One who supplies, directly or through a third person, a chattel for another's use is subject to liability if the supplier knows or has reason to know that the user, because of youth, inexperience, or otherwise, is likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others; ownership or control is only one factor, and the key inquiry is whether the entrustor knew or should have known some reason why entrusting the item was foolish or negligent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Burlington, Vermont, Lena Ortiz gave her cousin $6,000 specifically to buy a pickup truck from a local lot. Lena knew he had no driver's license and had failed the road test three times, and a week later he crashed while driving a friend to work, allegedly because he lacked basic driving skill.

If the injured passenger sues Lena for negligent entrustment, which is the strongest argument against dismissal?

Explanation. The majority adopted the broader Restatement rule: one who supplies a chattel directly or through a third person may be liable if the supplier knows or has reason to know the user, because of youth, inexperience, or otherwise, is likely to use it with unreasonable risk of physical harm. Ownership or continuing control is not required; it is only one factor. Funding a purchase can qualify as supplying the vehicle. (Derived from Vince v. Wilson (1989).)