On May 1, 1989, vehicles driven by appellant/plaintiff William Schofield and defendant Albertino Duriatti collided on U. S. Highway 78 in Clarke County, Georgia. Both men sustained injuries. An officer who invеstigated the accident averred that the vehicles collided almost totally head-on in the eastbound lane of Highway 78, which was the diréction Schofield was trаvelling. Duriatti, a French citizen who was living in London, had departed from London that day and upon arrival in Atlanta rented a car from appellee/defendаnt Hertz Corporation. Duriatti planned to drive the car that evening from Atlanta to Athens to visit a friend.
When Duriatti rented an automobile from Hertz, he had in his possessiоn a French passport and an international driving permit he obtained while residing in France. This permit reflected he had a valid French driver’s license. There is sоme dispute about whether Duriatti had in his possession a British driver’s license on the night in question, but the evidence showed that he had a valid driver’s license issued by Great Britain аt that time. 1 Duriatti testified that when he rented the car from Hertz, he presented his international permit and possibly his passport to the employee at the counter. Although it was Hertz’s policy at the time not to rent automobiles to foreigners who presented only an international driving permit without an accompanying valid driver’s license, Duriatti testified that the Hertz employee did not ask for nor did he present his British driver’s license to her. Duriatti no longer had the French driver’s license reflected on the international driving permit at the time he rented the car from Hertz, because he had surrendered that license to British authorities at the time hе obtained his British driver’s license.
Schofield filed this personal injury suit against Duriatti, Hertz, and Dow Chemical Company, Ltd., Duriatti’s employer. Hertz filed a motion for summary judgment on Schofield’s claims for negligent en *831 trustment, negligence per se and simple negligence. The trial court granted Hertz’s motion, and Schofield appeals from that dеcision.
1. Schofield argues that the trial court erred in granting Hertz summary judgment on his negligent entrustment claim because Hertz had actual knowledge that Duriatti was an incompetent driver by want of experience at the time it rented an automobile to him. On summary judgment, the movant has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue as to any mаterial fact and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When the movant is the defendant, the movant has the additional burden of piercing the plaintiff’s pleadings and affirmatively negating one or more essential elements of the complaint. The court must construe all evidence, inferences and conclusions arising from the evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion.
Saenz v. Andrus,
“Under the doctrine of negligent entrustment, a party is liable if he entrusts someone with an instrumentality, with actual knowledge that the person to whom he has entrusted the instrumentality is incompetent by reason of his age or inexperience, or his рhysical or mental condition, or his known habit of recklessness. [Cits.]” (Footnote omitted.)
Gunn v. Booker,
Schofield contends that actual knowledge can be imputed to Hertz that Duriatti was incomрetent to drive the vehicle he rented because Duriatti’s undisputed testimony shows that the Hertz employee who assisted Duriatti violated Hertz’s policy of obtaining a valid driver’s license, in addition to an international driving permit, before renting to foreigners. Violations of private guidelines do not establish negligence pеr se, but can be illustrative of what is considered reasonable behavior for employees. See
Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly &c.,
We hold that the Hertz employee’s apparеnt failure to comply with Hertz’s procedure of requesting a driver’s license in addition to an international driving permit cannot be the proximate cause of injury to Schofield. The United States has entered into a treaty with certain countries to allow drivers licensed by the participating countries to drive in the othеr countries that are parties to the treaty without further examination. Both Great Britian and France are parties to that agreement. Convention on Rоad Traffic, March 26, 1952, 3 U.S.T. 3008, T.I.A.S. No. 2487. Courts of this state must take judicial notice of all treaties or conventions and they predominate “over any
*832
statutory provision of the State of Georgia,”
Camp v. Sellers &c. Ltd.,
Schofield offers several other bases to support his argument that Hertz had actual knowlеdge that Duriatti was an incompetent driver at the time Hertz leased him an automobile. We have examined those bases and find them to be without merit.
2. Schofield alleges that the trial court erred in granting Hertz summary judgment on his negligence per se claim because he contends that the record shows that Duriatti violated OCGA §§ 40-5-20 and 40-5-21 by operating a motor vehicle in this state without a valid license in his immediate possession. A police officer who investigated the accident testifiеd that Duriatti’s British driver’s license was not found in his possession at the scene of the accident.
As we discussed above, the Convention on Road Traffic supersedеs the statutory provisions of the State of Georgia to the extent state statutory provisions are in conflict with the provisions of that agreement. Our review оf that convention reveals that a driver authorized to drive in participating countries pursuant to the agreement is required only to “hold a driving permit,” which the record reveals Duriatti did.
3. Schofield also enumerates as error that the trial court erred in granting Hertz summary judgment on Schofield’s claim against it for simple negligence. Essentially, Schofield argues that because the Hertz employee did not ask to see Duriatti’s current driver’s license, Hertz did not exercise ordinary carе to ascertain whether he was a competent driver. The record in this case is void of any evidence that Duriatti had been an incompetent or reckless driver in the past, in fact, any evidence concerning his driving record indicates that he was a competent driver. Thus, assuming arguendo, that the Hertz emplоyee’s failure to ask for Duriatti’s current license could be considered a negligent act, that act cannot constitute actionable negligencе under the facts of this case because there is no causal connection between Hertz’s alleged failure to ascertain whether Duriatti had been a reckless or incompetent driver in the past and Schofield’s injuries. See
Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Famble,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Schofield contends that whether Duriatti had a valid British driver’s license at the time of the accident is a disputed fact that would preclude summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim. Included in the record, however, is a copy of a driver’s license issued to Duriatti by the Department of Transport of Great Britain which was valid for the period from April 1989 through April 2028.