| Venue: | VT SC |
| Facts: | Wilson gives her grandnephew money to buy a car, and the kid smashes into Vince. Vince sues Wilson and also the car dealer. Turns out the kid had no licence (had failed the test a couple of times, had some substance abuse, etc. And Wilson had told the car dealer this. |
| Posture: | Directed verdicts for the car salesman and dealership at trial; the claim against the great aunt went to the jury, which found for the plaintiff. Wilson appeals. |
| Issue: | Should there have been summary judgment for Wilson at trial, or do Vince's allegations of negligent entrustment make a good enough prima facie case to survive dismissal? |
| Holding: | The allegations are sufficient to go to the jury. Affirm the judgment against Wilson. The trial court erred in dismissing against Ace and Gardner. Remanded for further proceedings. |
| Rule: | The tort of negligent entrustment requires a showing that the entrustor knew or should have known some reason why entrusting the item to another was foolish or negligent. |
| Reasoning: | The liability arises out of the negligence of both the entrustor and the entrustee: the incompetent driver and the person who puts the incompetent driver behind the wheel. It is the entrusting that creates the unreasonable risk, whether this is done by selling or giving. There was evidence here which made it possible for a jury to find that everyone involved knew the kid had no business driving, and yet they let him have a car. |
| Dicta: | |