CBA Record

ous instrumentality and the defendants had a superior right of control. However, the claim failed because there was no evidence that the gun came into the possession of the five-year-old boy through some neglectful act of the defendants. Defendants tout Teter as a main victory, but a careful analysis shows it is extremely narrow in its holding. The plaintiffs did not allege where the pistol was kept or how it came into the possession of the shooter, Teter , 112 Ill.2d at 258. Thus, there was no evidence of entrustment to the minor and thus the complaint failed. Likewise in Mers , there was no evidence of superior control or ownership. The lesson of Teter and Mers is simple: plead how the instru- ment was entrusted to the entrustor by the entrustee. With appropriate facts, the negligent entrustment of a gun to another will create liability. In Latty v. Jordan , a farm owner allowed a father, his son, and his son’s friend to use the farm to do some hunting, 237 Ill. App.3d 528, 529 (1992). On the second visit to the farm, the farm owner allowed

need not be directly to the person who ultimately causes the injury. There, the entrustment was to the father but the father then negligently allowed his son to use it. This argument can be applied to virtually any other instrumentality including cars, motorcycles, and trucks. Cases involving firearms present a unique set of problems. While guns are per se dangerous, savvy practitioners must remember that establishing a dangerous instrumentality is only one battle in a larger war. Plaintiffs must also plead and prove that the entrustor should have known of the incompetence of the entrustee. In firearms cases, showing little experience, training, or knowledge can overcome these hurdles. Other Cases Perhaps the most important negligent entrustment case in the last 20 years is Garland v. Sybaris Club International, Garland , 21 N.E.3d 24 (2014). There, one of several plaintiffs alleged one of the owners negligently entrusted his plane to a pilot. Under FAA regulations, the pilot

the father to use one of his rifles and placed no restrictions on their use. The father stored the farm owner’s rifle under a mat- tress. The boys found it and while playing with it, the son shot and killed his friend accidentally. The estate of the boy sued the farm owner contending he had negligently entrusted the gun to the father. Justice Barry concluded for the panel: In the case before us, the evidence allows a reasonable inference to be drawn that defendant knew of and acquiesced in the use of his .35 rifle by 11 year old Joseph on the day of the accident. Such acquiescence could support a finding of implied permission. Obviously, other infer- ences would also be reasonable and, therefore, a material issue of fact exists which requires a jury deter- mination. The court reversed granting of summary judgment. The Latty case is an important one. It holds that the negligent entrustment

SELL YOUR PRACTICE with Chicagoland Business Brokers We specialize in Professional Practice Sales

Doctors and Lawyers on Staff Locally owned and operated “We handle transitions

free consultations

from start to finish”

chicagolandbusinessbroker@gmail.com Call 224-458-9388 CALL NOW!

CBA RECORD 39