Deborah Bennett v. Carrie Russell
913 N.W.2d 364
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Nov. 16, 2013 a Chrysler 300 leased from Enterprise and rented by Dennis Hogge struck plaintiffs’ vehicle; Latasha Phillips was the actual driver (initially misidentified as Carrie Russell).
- Hogge rented the car shortly before the crash, drove it home, then gave the keys to Latasha; she drove off and was involved in the accident about an hour after the rental.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence and amended to add Enterprise and Hogge, pleading liability under Michigan’s owner-liability statute, MCL 257.401.
- Hogge moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing he was not an “owner” under the Vehicle Code and thus not liable under the statutory theory.
- Plaintiffs argued at trial (and on appeal) that negligent entrustment—a common-law tort—applies to a supplier of a chattel even if the supplier is not the vehicle’s statutory “owner,” and that factual disputes exist about whether Hogge knew or should have known Latasha was unfit to drive.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for Hogge; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding negligent entrustment liability is not limited to statutory owners and factual disputes precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hogge can be liable under negligent entrustment despite not meeting the statutory definition of “owner” | Negligent entrustment is a common-law tort that imposes liability on the supplier of a chattel, regardless of statutory ownership; pleadings can conform to proofs | Hogge is not an “owner” under MCL 257.37, so owner-liability theory fails and summary judgment should be granted | Court held negligent entrustment can impose liability on a supplier who is not the statutory owner; dismissal based solely on lack of ownership was plain error |
| Whether factual disputes exist on knowledge/competence for negligent entrustment | Circumstances (short rental-to-entrustment timeline, failure to add Latasha as authorized driver, evidence she lacked a license or was intoxicated) support inference Hogge knew or should have known she was unfit | Hogge testified he believed only he was authorized to drive and only allowed Latasha to drive because she needed to get home; contested facts negate summary judgment | Court found genuine issues of material fact about whether Hogge knew or should have known Latasha was unfit to drive; summary judgment improper |
| Whether plaintiffs’ failure to plead negligent entrustment bars relief or amendment | Plaintiffs asked leave (or argued pleadings should conform to proofs) and said amendment would not prejudice Hogge | Hogge relied on the pleadings and the trial court concluded lack of ownership was fatal under pleaded theory | Court noted plaintiffs’ complaint pleaded only owner-liability and remand should permit the trial court to exercise discretion on allowing amendment under MCR 2.118 |
| Whether the trial court’s legal error is reviewable on appeal (preservation/plain error) | Plaintiffs argued ownership was irrelevant to negligent entrustment; sought relief on appeal | Hogge argued plaintiffs did not preserve negligent-entrustment theory in trial court | Court concluded the trial court made a plain legal error by dismissing solely for lack of ownership; review under plain-error standard warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Perin v. Peuler (On Rehearing), 373 Mich. 531 (negligent entrustment liability may be based on the supplier of a chattel, not only the owner)
- Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 491 Mich. 200 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary-disposition review)
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (de novo review of summary-disposition rulings)
- Eason v. Coggins Mem. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 210 Mich. App. 261 (definition of negligent entrustment)
- Travelers Ins. v. U-Haul of Mich., Inc., 235 Mich. App. 273 (negligent entrustment may arise from motor-vehicle use)
- McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich. 15 (noting limits/overruling aspects of prior precedent referenced in Perin)
- In re Kostin, 278 Mich. App. 47 (leave to amend generally granted absent particularized reasons)