40 Cal.App.5th 555
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- On November 7, 2011 John Harris suffered a grand mal seizure while driving a Toyota Tacoma he co-owned with his father, David Harris, and fatally collided with a car; plaintiffs stipulated John’s seizure-caused loss of control made him negligent and the sole cause of the crash.
- The Tacoma was purchased in 2005 in both names; John had sole possession of the keys and was the regular driver; David co-signed the loan, paid insurance/registration/repairs, and sometimes made payments.
- David learned by June–July 2011 that John had experienced grand mal seizures (including two seizures on BART in June and July 2011) and researched the condition, but he did not take measures (e.g., withdraw registration, cancel insurance, take keys) to prevent John from driving.
- Plaintiffs sued John and David for negligence; against David the theory was negligent entrustment.
- The jury found David liable: David knew or should have known John was unfit to drive, permitted John to drive the Tacoma, and that permitting was a substantial factor in causing the deaths; fault was allocated 90% to John and 10% to David. Judgment of $388,400 against David followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing David’s proposed supplemental instructions to CACI No. 724 defining “permitted” (power to deny use) | CACI No. 724 adequately states negligent entrustment elements; no supplemental instruction needed | CACI No. 724 failed to explain that liability requires power to forbid use and that permissive use requires express or implied consent | Court affirmed: refusal proper; CACI No. 724 sufficiently covered “permitted”; David’s proposed instructions were argumentative and unduly emphasized his theory |
| Whether the court erred by refusing David’s proposed special causation instruction (that John would not have had ready access to another vehicle absent the Tacoma) | Plaintiffs: standard substantial-factor instruction sufficed and was given | David: needed instruction linking David’s conduct to John’s ready access to other vehicles | Court affirmed: standard substantial-factor/CA C I instruction adequately covered causation; special instruction unnecessary |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for negligent entrustment (permission and causation) | Plaintiffs: evidence supported implied permission and causation—joint title, payments, insurance, repairs, and David’s failure to act after learning of seizures | David: no evidence he retained power to control adult son’s use after learning of seizures; thus no implied permission or causation | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported jury’s inference of implied permission and causation; credibility/resolution of conflicts for jury |
| Admissibility of evidence David owned a construction company (prejudicial) | Plaintiffs: ownership relevant to background and credibility/financial context | David: evidence unduly prejudicial and suggested ability to pay verdict | Court: issue forfeited by inadequate record and conclusory briefing; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Syah v. Johnson, 247 Cal.App.2d 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (negligent entrustment imposes liability on owner for entrusting vehicle to one whose incompetency is known or should be known)
- Mettelka v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.3d 1245 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (co-ownership does not preclude negligent entrustment where one co-owner had power over use and consent can be implied)
- Krum v. Malloy, 22 Cal.2d 132 (Cal. 1943) (power to permit is correlative of power to forbid; possession and consent are factual questions in co-ownership)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (substantial-factor test for causation and relation to "but for" rule)
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2012) (concurrent forces and substantial-factor analysis)
- Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Cmty. College Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for jury instructions is de novo)
- Fremont Comp. Ins. Co. v. Hartnett, 19 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (implied permission may be inferred from owner’s purchase/maintenance and failure to prevent use)
- Talbott v. Csakany, 199 Cal.App.3d 700 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (instruction/cause-of-action discussion relevant to entrustment and proof issues)