 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stokes v. Stewart12/22/2000
a part of his master's business that his physical acts and the time to be devoted to the business are subject to control. Blanchard [v. Ogima, 253 La. 34, 215 So. 2d 902, 907 (1968).] Whetstone, 616 So. 2d at 770.
Under the negligent entrustment theory, the lender of a vehicle is not responsible for the negligence of the borrower, unless he had or should have had knowledge that the borrower was physically or mentally incompetent to drive. Barnett v. Globe Indemnity Company, 557 So. 2d 300, 301 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990); Reuther v. Landreneau, 480 So. 2d 376, 379 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1985), writ denied, 482 So. 2d 628 (La. 1986). However, an owner of an automobile who knowingly entrusts it to an intoxicated, or otherwise incompetent, driver is responsible for the harm resulting from the incompetent operation of the vehicle. Pereira Enterprises, Inc. v. Soileau, 551 So. 2d 39, 40 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1989); Danos v. St. Pierre, 383 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1980), affirmed, 402 So. 2d 633, 636-37 (La. 1981). We note, however, that we can find no authority which places a duty on an owner or lender of an automo bile to make an inquiry into one's driving habits or record when no reason exists to place the lender on notice of the borrower's disability or incompetence. Reuther v. Landreneau, 480 So. 2d at 379.
In Pereira Enterprises, Inc. v. Soileau, 551 So. 2d at 40-42, this court determined that, absent testimony or other evidence to indicate that an owner of an automobile knew or should have known that the driver was intoxicated or incompetent, the owner could not be held negligent for allowing her to drive his automobile. In Pereira Enterprises, the owner of an automobile met the operator in a lounge for the first time. The two were present in the lounge together for approximately forty-five minutes during which time the owner consumed one or two cans of beer. The owner did not know whether the driver had been drinking before he arrived at the lounge; the driver did not appear to be intoxicated in that her speech was not slurred noticeably and she had no difficulty in walking. Her blood alcohol content, however, was .28. The trial court determined that because the driver's blood alcohol content was .28 she would have been obviously impaired such that the owner knew or should have known she was intoxicated and was thus negligent for allowing her to operate his automobile. In reversing the trial court judgment, the appellate court determined that without expert testimony, the trial judge could not determine the effects of a .28 blood alcohol content based upon his own opinion. The appellate court noted that there was no testimony or other evidence to indicate that the owner knew or should have known that the driver was intoxicated or incompetent. During the short period of time they were together, the driver's condition did not appear to concern the owner.
In Reuther v. Landreneau, 480 So. 2d at 377-79, despite her parents' specific orders not to permit anyone to operate her car, a teenage girl permitted her boyfriend to drive her car. Shortly thereafter, the boyfriend was involved in an automobile accident. In an action against the girl for negligent entrustment, the court determined that the teenage girl had no reason to believe that her boyfriend was an incompetent driver. The boyfriend testified that the girl had no knowledge of his previous tickets, nor was she aware that his driving privileges had been restricted by his parents because of poor grades. The court determined that, in the absence of evidence to show that the girl had knowledge or any reason to suspect that the boyfriend was a dangerous or incompetent driver, she was not placed on notice to make an inquiry. Jones, 633
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|