Negligent Entrustment of a Motor Vehicle in Texas

by Philip Silberman Silberman Law Firm, PLLC

In most cases, an owner of a vehicle has the right to entrust that vehicle to another person. However, the situation becomes problematic if the owner of the vehicle loans that vehicle to someone who should not be driving. While negligent drivers are usually held accountable for the damage they cause in an accident, when the owner of the vehicle is aware that the driver should not be driving, the owner can be found guilty of negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle.

When a vehicle is involved in negligent entrustment, it is usually because the owner of the vehicle is aware or should have been aware that the driver is unable to drive. When the driver is impaired or has a history of drinking and driving, the owner of the car may be accountable for the accident since the owner knows of the driver’s history of recklessness or incompetence.

Proving negligence is much easier if the owner hands the keys to someone who is already impaired or otherwise unable to drive. Proving negligent entrustment is more difficult when the borrower is sober when he or she receives the car but later stops at a bar to drink.

Commercial businesses may also be guilty of negligent entrustment. For example, a trucking company that provides a truck to a driver who is not properly licensed may be found guilty of negligent entrustment if an accident occurs.

Elements of Negligent Entrustment

Negligent entrustment must include the following elements:

(1) the entrustment of a vehicle by the owner;

(2) to an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver;

(3) that the owner knew or should have known to be unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; and

(4) the driver was negligent on the occasion in question; and

(5) driver’s negligence proximately caused the accident and plaintiff’s injuries.

If all elements are in place, the driver, the owner, or both may be found liable for damages. There is a recent case in Texas worth discussion here.

Sauceda v. Quality Motors

A recent judgment was made in 2021 in the 13th District Court in Navarro County. The case involved a negligententrustment claim against a car dealership (Quality Motors) that retained the certificate of title to a vehicle involved in a head-on collision. Appellant Mary Sue Sauceda argued that the trial court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment should be reversed because Quality Motors negligently entrusted the vehicle to Danna Zertuche-Yanez, the other driver in the head-on collision, as a matter of law.

Sauceda filed suit against Zertuche-Yanez and Quality Motors on several negligence theories. In support of her negligent entrustment theory against the dealership, Sauceda filed a traditional motion for partial summary judgment asking the trial court to find, as a matter of law, that Quality Motors: (1) retained ownership of the Mazda at the time of the collision; and (2) had a duty to ensure Zertuche-Yanez was a licensed and competent driver and that they breached that duty.

Quality Motors filed a reply to Sauceda’s motion and then filed its own traditional motion for summary judgment asking the trial court to find, as a matter of law, that Quality Motors did not: (1) own or control the vehicle at the time of the accident; and (2) have a duty to ensure that Zertuche-Yanez was licensed when it sold the vehicle to her. Quality Motors also asked the trial court to enter summary judgment in its favor on Sauceda’s claims of negligent training, negligence per se, and gross negligence.

After a hearing, the trial court denied Sauceda’s summaryjudgment motion and granted Quality Motors’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, concluding that Quality Motors presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of ownership at summary judgment. Quality Motors, as the naked title owner of the vehicle, had no right to possess or control the car such that it should be held liable for allegedly negligently entrusting it to Zertuche-Yanez.

The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and did not find Quality Motors liable for negligent entrustment.

Proving responsibility in these cases may be a challenge. An attorney who is experienced with personal injury litigation is crucial when prosecuting or defending a negligent entrustment case.

All information provided in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to be used for legal advice. Users of this article should not take any actions or refrain from taking any actions based upon content or information in this article. Readers of this article should contact a licensed Texas attorney for a full and complete review of their legal issues.