Rice v. Kanoza
2012 Ohio 2581
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Rice, a minor, was a passenger in an Escort driven by Duffy; Kanoza’s mother owned the Escort but Kanoza was its primary user.
- Duffy, age 15, had been at a party with Kanoza; Kanoza witnessed Duffy drinking beer and did not protest when Duffy sat in the driver’s seat.
- Rice sued Kanoza for negligent entrustment, arguing control over the vehicle regardless of ownership justified liability.
- Kanoza moved for summary judgment arguing ownership is required for negligent-entrustment liability under Gulla v. Straus; the trial court granted summary judgment in Kanoza’s favor.
- On appeal, the court held that control over the vehicle, not ownership, can support negligent-entrustment liability; genuine issues of material fact remained; reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonowner in control can be liable for negligent entrustment | Rice argues control suffices for liability | Kanoza argues liability rests on ownership under Gulla | Yes; control can trigger liability, ownership not dispositive. |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment | Rice contends facts show entrustment to an incompetent driver | Kanoza maintains no duty or control to entrustment | There are genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulla v. Straus, 154 Ohio St. 193 (1950) (owner’s entrustment liability requires knowledge or incompetency; relevant to control analysis)
- Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr., 39 Ohio St.3d 86 (1988) (establishes special-relations duty to control third parties or property to prevent harm)
- Ripple v. Mahoning Nat’l Bank, 143 Ohio St. 614 (1944) (lessor liability dependent on possession and control of premises)
- Cooper v. Roose, 151 Ohio St. 316 (1949) (landowner’s tort liability tied to control/occupation)