Cantalupo v. Lewis, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16294

Cantalupo, as personal representative of the estate, sued Lewis for negligent entrustment and negligent undertaking after Lewis’s brother, driving impaired, killed Suzanne Cantalupo in a head-on collision.
Facts: Lewis’s brother consumed bourbon at a restaurant; Lewis took the keys and later left them accessible at home; the keys were placed on a hutch about 20 feet from where the brother slept.
The brother later obtained the keys and drove, causing the fatal crash; both the brother and Cantalupo’s estate victimized.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Lewis on public policy grounds without addressing the merits; the appellate court granted review and proceeded under de novo review on merits.
The main legal questions were whether Lewis could be liable for negligent entrustment under Restatement § 390 and for negligent undertaking under Restatement § 324A; the court held no liability under either theory under the undisputed facts.
The decision AFFIRMS the circuit court’s summary judgment ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Negligent entrustment under Restatement §390	Cant alupo argues constructive entrustment by placing keys where brother could access them.	Lewis contends mere placement does not constitute supplying the car; no entrustment.	No liability; mere placement does not constitute entrustment under §390.
Negligent undertaking under Restatement §324A	Cant alupo asserts defendant undertook to prevent driving while intoxicated, increasing risk.	Lewis did not undertake a duty to prevent impairment; inaction cannot be undertak ing.	No liability; defendant did not undertake the brother’s duty to not drive under the influence; risk was not increased.

Foster v. Arthur, 519 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (constructive entrustment not established by mere access to firearm in Foster; limited to unique facts)
Clay Electric Co-operative, Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2003) (undertaker’s doctrine; §324A liability for increasing risk or undertaking duties)
Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 1987) (social host serving alcohol generally not liable for injured guest)
Dowell v. Gracewood Fruit Co., 559 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1990) (rejected extending social host liability beyond serving alcohol to minors)
Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (summary judgment standard; disputes of material fact must be submitted to jury)
Fina v. Hennarichs, 19 So.3d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (de novo review of summary judgments; merits addressed)
Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (standard for reviewing trial court rulings on summary judgment)