377 P.3d 1016
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- Owner parked a Porsche with American Valet at a Scottsdale resort; valet issued a claim ticket to the owner.
- John Morken (not the owner, without a claim ticket or permission) asked valet employee Daniel Casey for the Porsche while allegedly high and behaving erratically; Casey gave him the keys.
- Morken drove the Porsche at high speed, collided with a Suburban, killing one occupant and seriously injuring others; Morken later pled guilty to second-degree murder and related offenses.
- Plaintiffs (occupants and survivors) sued American Valet, the resort owner, and Casey for negligent entrustment, general negligence, and related wrongful-death claims; they voluntarily dismissed aggravated-recklessness/punitive-damages claims before the motion to dismiss.
- The superior court dismissed for failure to state a claim: negligent entrustment (allegedly insufficient pleading that valet knew or should have known Morken was impaired) and general negligence (court found no duty). Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint adequately pleaded negligent entrustment (knowledge/should-have-known of incompetence) | Complaint alleges Morken was high, erratic, and thus incompetent; alleges defendants knew or should have known and nevertheless entrusted keys | Allegations were too conclusory; plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing appellees knew or should have known Morken was intoxicated/impaired | Reversed as to negligent entrustment — under Arizona notice pleading, the complaint sufficiently alleged the element of "knew or should have known" to survive dismissal |
| Whether valet services should be categorically exempt from negligent entrustment claims (public-policy argument) | No categorical exemption should apply; Arizona recognizes negligent entrustment and facts here differ from cases returning car to rightful owner | Valet industry policy: authorities in other states exempt valets in some contexts; returning car to rightful owner differs | Rejected — court declined to adopt a categorical exemption for valet parking in these facts; cited factual distinction (Morken was not the owner) |
| Whether a bailee/valet lacked sufficient control (transitory custody) to be a supplier for negligent entrustment | Valet had sole custody/control while parking and thus had the requisite control to supply the vehicle | Control was merely transitory and analogous to brief police detention, insufficient to create negligent-entrustment liability | Rejected — valet/bailment confers sole custody/control for purposes of negligent entrustment; ownership not required |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a general negligence claim (duty to the public) | Defendants created risk by entrusting the car; adopt broader Restatement Third duty standard | No special relationship or statute creates a duty to the world; plaintiffs ask court to adopt Restatement Third §7(a), which this court previously declined | Affirmed dismissal — court declined to extend general duty under Restatement Third; no duty established as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Langford, 58 Ariz. 281 (1941) (longstanding Arizona recognition of negligent entrustment doctrine)
- Tissicino v. Peterson, 211 Ariz. 416 (App. 2005) (application of Restatement (Second) § 390 and negligent entrustment elements)
- Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104 (App. 2006) (enumerating negligent entrustment elements in Arizona)
- Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors, 91 Ariz. 331 (1962) (owner leaving keys and theft cases — distinguished from valet bailment)
- Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co., 229 Ariz. 333 (App. 2012) (stolen-vehicle context; no general negligence duty under those facts)
- Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli, 238 Ariz. 538 (App. 2015) (refusing to adopt Restatement (Third) § 7(a) as a broad duty standard)