By now, of course, we all know the story. Lizzie Grubman’s father leant his daughter his car, she went a bit postal and tried (so it is alleged) to run down a bunch of people.
Now I don’t have a problem assigning blame and responsibility to Lizzie if she did this on purpose.
However, some of the people who Lizzie ran down are suing her father as well, because it was his car.
Now, if I lend my car to Mary Maniac, (who had thirteen speeding tickets, spent twenty days in jail for road rage and had her license suspended four times) and she runs someone down, I can see where they might turn to me and say “Given her history, you shouldn’t have leant her your car, you’re partially responsible.”
But if I lend my car to Samantha Safedriver, who had nary a parking ticket in twenty five years of driving and she (for whatever reason) loses it on the road and decides to use the car as a battering ram, what is the logic behind holding me responsible for her actions? I certainly had no reason to believe she was going to do this. (N.B. I’m not implying here that Lizzie Grubman has a perfect driving record. She may very well not. I don’t have any facts on the matter. But it would seem that her father can be sued even if she did have a clean record.)
And, how far does this responsibility extend? If I lend a friend a steak knife at a BBQ and he turns around and immediately stabs someone, am I responsible (assume it’s not my house)? If I lend someone a videotape and they strangle someone with the tape, can I be sued by the survivors?
So, what’s the deal here? For what am I responsible if I lend someone something?
zev, I’ve been rather irresponsible in keeping up with my negligence law, but your examples in question suggest to me that you have a good idea what’s afoot. Without using the legalese I forgot, the question is going to be along the lines of whether you should have done what you did. Giving your car to Ms. Maniac is a Bad Idea, whereas you don’t have any reason to beleive Ms. Safedriver was going to crack and drive through a crowd of pedestrians.
Your responsibility follows your negligence. The analysis will look at your actions to decide whether you had a duty that you breached, that led to a foreseeable result. And, this will mostly be limited to your actions. So, you can be responsible for what you lend, if in retrospect, a reasonable person would have seen the trouble it could lead to.
Now, I just need some of our more knowledgeable brethren to teach us some tort law.
The tort you’re looking for is “negligent entrustment.” Fear not for Mr. Grubman’s millions–without eveidence of his own negligence, he’ll be dismissed from the lawsuit right quick. Do not, however, lend your car to Mary Maniac if you know she likes to drink and drive, or you can and will get tagged for negligent entrustment.
I agree with the two previous responses. In addition to negligent entrustment is the principle of respondeat superior, which would hold an employer responsible for the torts of his/her employee if those torts are committed in the course of the employee’s employment, even if the employer had no reason to know that the employee was a bad driver (or was otherwise likely to commit the tort in question.)
So if Tim the Truckdriver negligently runs down Pete Pedestrian while delivering his employer’s frozen waffles, Acme Waffles is also on the hook. It’s a little murkier if Tim flips out and deliberately runs down Pete with the waffle truck, especially if Tim does it for reasons that have nothing to do with the waffle delivery job.
I have not heard any facts that would lead to respondeat superior liability on the part of the father, as it doesn’t seem that he employed his daughter, but it’s a commonly-made claim, so I mentioned it to complete the legal picture.
Many if not all States have special statutes, generally called “owner responsibility act” or some such, that operate to make the owner of an automobile responsible and answerable in damages for injury done by a person operating the car with the owner’s consent. It is just about that simple. The liability of the owner is statutory and does not rely on any ideas of negligent entrustment of the car to a person not qualified or competent to drive it or on the duty of the master to pay for injury done by his servant. In most cases the dispute becomes one between the driver’s insurer and the owner’s insurer. I suspect that the social reasoning behind the statute is to increase the chance that there will be someone responsible for the loss by expanding the number of people who could be held liable.
The real fun come when the owner loans the car to one person and that person loans the car to a second person who goes off and has an accident.
Never heard of that before, SG. I certainly can’t find one for Texas, and I did a bit of research on negligent entrustment back in law school without ever coming across an “owner responsibility act.” Do you have any cites, by chance?
No. At least the “many if not all” part is wrong. It’s possible this exists in some states, but even that would surprise me. Are you sure you’re not confusing this with no-fault insurance?
Iowa Code section 321.493, provides:
1. a. Subject to paragraph “b”, in all cases where damage is done by any motor vehicle by reason of negligence of the driver, and driven with the consent of the owner, the owner of the motor vehicle shall be liable for such damage. For the purpose of this subsection, “owner” means the person to whom the certificate of title for the vehicle has been issued or assigned or to whom a manufacturer’s or importer’s certificate of origin for the vehicle has been delivered or assigned. However, if the vehicle is leased,” owner” means the person to whom the vehicle is leased, not the person to whom the certificate of title…. For the purposes of this subsection, “leased” means the transfer of the possession or right of possession of a vehicle to a lessee for valuable consideration for a continuous period of twelve months or more pursuant to a written agreement.
b. The owner of a vehicle with a gross weight rating of 7,500 pounds or more who rents the vehicle for less than a year under an agreement which requires an insurance policy covering at least the minimum levels of financial responsibility prescribed by law, shall not be deemed the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of determining financial responsibility for the operation of the vehicle or for the acts of the operator in connection with the vehicle’s operation.
2. A person who has made a bona fide sale or transfer of the persons right, title, or interest in or to a vehicle and who has delivered possession of the motor vehicle to the purchaser or transferee shall nor be liable for any damage thereafter resulting from the negligent operation of the vehicle by another, but the person to whom possession was delivered shall be deemed the owner….
The statute has been on the books since 1924. I think it is a pretty common provision of State law.
Apparently about a dozen states have a doctrine called the “family car” doctrine - where if the owner of the car permits a member of the household to drive it, the owner is liable for negligent acts of the driver. (The idea is that the family convenience is a business, and in a manner of speaking, the driver is a servant of the owner, so using respondeat superior the driver is liable.) Not really relevant in this instance, as NY is not one of those states, and I’m guessing Lizzie isn’t living at home anymore so is no longer a member of the household - but it has happened to other parents who lent the car to their kids.
Owner responsibility acts or automobile consent statutes also show up in a dozen states. NY is one of those states (N.Y.Veh&Traf.L., Art 11, section 388) (Texas isn’t). However, liability ends as soon as the driver uses it outside of the time or place that the owner gave permission for the car to be driven or for a different purpose than the owner gave his consent. So, while the owner would probably be liable for negligent acts of the driver, the owner would probably not be liable for intentionally harmful acts by the driver.
Perhaps the plaintive’s lawyer’s is angling to establish that the daughter had a pattern of impulsive behavior such that the father should have known better than to loan her his car.