CBA Record

or if the entrustee was allowed to drive the vehicle with express or implied permission, Evans , 201 Ill.2d at 434. If the evidence provided shows that the entrustor did indeed have a superior right of control over the vehicle, then the claim can proceed to a determination of whether the entrustor knew, or should have known, the party entrusted with the vehicle was inexperienced, incompetent or unfit to operate the vehicle. Incompetence or inexperience can be shown in many ways. For example, a history of tickets or moving violations can demonstrate incompetence, Northcutt v. Chapman , 353 Ill.App.3d 970, 972 (2004). A number of prior crashes can serve as evidence of incompetence. Experi- ence and age can be factors, Small , 220 Ill. App.3d at 542. One potential way a plaintiff can show that a defendant-driver is incompetent, inexperienced or unsafe is by offering proof that the defendant did not have a valid driver’s license. This can be done by show- ing the defendant either never obtained a driver’s license or that his or her license has been suspended for an accumulation of driving violations or other reasons. A number of cases have been decided where a plaintiff alleging negligent entrustment of a vehicle has argued that the defendant’s lack of a driver’s license was clear proof that he or she was incompetent, inexperienced or unsafe behind the wheel. Issues surrounding an entrustee’s driver’s license status or history can be offered as proof that an entrustor knew, or should have known, about the entrustee’s incom- petence, inexperience or unsafe tendencies behind the wheel. One example is Giers v. Anten , 68 Ill.App.3d 535 (1978). In Giers , the plaintiff appealed a trial court ruling that struck the plaintiff’s negligent entrust- ment claim against defendant, Donald Anten. On appeal, the appellate court reviewed defendant and entrustee Donna Anten’s driving record in an attempt to determine if striking the claims for negli- gent entrustment was warranted. The court’s review included evidence that Donna was involved in three prior automobile accidents, including one that occurred due to drunk driving. The drunk- driving accident caused Donna’s license to

be suspended for just less than three years. This suspension of her driving privileges, along with the three accidents that caused that suspension, were deemed sufficient evidence to reverse the trial court’s hold- ing that the plaintiff’s claims for negligent entrustment should be struck. This victory for the plaintiff is yet another example of how issues with an entrustee’s driver’s license can be presented as proof of incompetence, inexperience, or unsafe driving habits. The more glar- ing the issue, such as a complete lack of a driver’s license or an extended time with a suspended license, the easier it will likely to prove that the entrustor had knowledge of the entrustee’s deficiencies. Firearm Cases. Unlike automobiles, guns are dangerous instrumentalities by their very nature. Several courts have considered whether gun shop owners could be liable for selling guns in various circumstances or whether municipalities or others can be held liable for entrusting service weapons with police officers. Johnson v. Mers is an example of a court reviewing the issue of whether a municipality can be held liable for neg- ligently entrusting a police officer with a service weapon, Johnson v. Mers , 279 Ill. App.3d 372, 378 (1996). In that case, defendant-police officer Rena Jensen shot plaintiff James Johnson in the head during a drunken quarrel in the plaintiff’s mobile home. As a result of the gunshot wound to his head, Johnson sought recovery from the Village of Island Lake, which employed and issued Jensen her weapon under the theory of negligent entrustment. The court refused to hold Island Lake liable, however, because Jensen had purchased the weapon on her own. This meant that the Village of Island Lake held no ownership in the weapon and, therefore, the claim for neg- ligent entrustment could not stand. Similarly, in Teter v. Clemens , a five- year-old plaintiff was struck in the left eye by a pellet gun shot by the defendant’s five year old grandson, Teter , 112 Ill.2d 252 (1986). The defendant had previously purchased the pellet gun, and his five-year- old grandson had obtained possession of it without his knowledge or permission. There was no doubt the gun was a danger-

Small v. St. Francis Hosp. , 220 Ill.App.3d 537, 542 (1991). There is no established “minimum threshold” that plaintiffs must pass to establish negligent entrustment. Instead, determinations of the entrustor’s notice of the entrustee’s incompetence, inexperience, or recklessness are looked at on a case-by-case basis. Inevitably, defendants deny they knew of the entrustee’s incompetence. In fact, not a single reported Illinois case contains a reference where the defendant entrustor admitted he knew of the incompetence of the entrustee. Thus, cases have considered whether the entrusting party had a “reason to know” of the entrustee’s deficiencies as one possible standard, Garland v. Sybaris Club Int’l, Inc. , 21 N.E.3d 24, 46 (2014). Whether the party had a reason to know can be proven with facts regarding the entrustor’s knowledge of the entrustee’s past use of the item in question, Lulay , 359 Ill.App.3d at 658. There are even cases where a simple expression of concern about the entrustee’s abilities under certain cir- cumstances is enough to sustain the claim, Garland , 21 N.E.3d at 46. Common Types of Negligent Entrustment Cases Motor Vehicle Cases. One of the most common types of negligent entrustment cases involve entrustment of automobiles and motorcycles to unsafe or unqualified drivers. Within the context of negligent entrustment, an automobile or motorcycle is not a dangerous article per se, Zedella , 165 Ill.2d at 186. However, a vehicle may become a dangerous instrument if it is oper- ated by a person unskilled in its use. As a result, a duty is then imposed on the owner of a vehicle not to permit someone who they know to be, or should know, is incom- petent, reckless, or inexperienced to drive the vehicle, DuBois , 217 Ill.App.3d at 283. To establish that a vehicle has been negligently entrusted, a plaintiff must first plead that the entrustor had a superior right of control over the vehicle, Zedella , 165 Ill.2d at 186-87. Superior right of control can be established in a number of ways, including showing that the entrustor bought the vehicle, paid for its insurance, had the title listed under his or her name

38 SEPTEMBER 2016