384 S.W.3d 330
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Negligent entrustment case addressing first-party liability when entrustee relies on entrustor with an intoxicated driver.
- Hays, an intoxicated driver, died in a van crash while using a company van owned/controlled by Royer entities.
- Brody Hays and Heather Hays, as wrongful-death petitioners, allege Royer knew or should have known of Hays’s intoxication.
- Circuit court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim; on appeal, the question is whether a first-party negligent entrustment claim is actionable.
- Missouri recognizes pure comparative fault and has not barred such first-party claims, depending on the facts and proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entrustee may sue entrustor for negligent entrustment without third-party injury | Hayses allege entrustor knew of incompetence | Royer argues no duty to protect adult from own intoxication | Yes; entrustee may sue for negligent entrustment |
| Duty of care to entrustee for entrusting a vehicle to an intoxicated driver | Entrustor had duty to avoid entrusting to an intoxicated person | No duty to prevent entrustee’s self-harm in Missouri | Entrustor owes a duty; foreseeability supports it |
| Public policy and dram shop act influence on first-party negligent entrustment claims | Dram shop act does not bar first-party claim | Public policy disfavors first-party liability for intoxication | Public policy does not bar first-party negligent entrustment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- O.L. v. R.L., 62 S.W.3d 469 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (duty to protect dependents appears from foreseeability and policy considerations)
- Hallquist v. Smith, 189 S.W.3d 173 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (elements of negligent entrustment; knowledge of entrustee’s incompetence)
- Steenrod v. Klipsch Hauling Co., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 158 (Mo.App. E.D.1990) (implicit first-party negligent entrustment recognition requires knowledge of incompetence)
- Thomasson v. Winsett, 310 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App.1958) (similar implication of entrustor knowledge of entrustee incompetence)
- Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) (pure comparative fault allows entrustee recovery despite own fault)