[ad_1]
Illustrative hypothetical: The case of Ricki and Alex Mitchell
Ricki Mitchell was a loving mother of three who lived in Chicago, Illinois. Her youngest child, Alex, was a 19-year-old college student.
On a Friday around midnight, Ricki received a call from Alex. He sounded distressed and informed her that he’d had a bit too much to drink at a friend’s party. Ricki was relieved that Alex had called instead of attempting to drive home, but she was also concerned about his well-being. Instead of suggesting that Alex take a taxi or use a ride-sharing service, Ricki made what she would later regret as a fatal mistake. She told Alex to wait 30 minutes, drink some water, and then drive home.
Ricki believed that the short delay and some water might help Alex sober up just enough to get home safely. She also considered the fact that Alex’s route from the party covered less than two miles through quiet suburban streets.
Unfortunately, the combination of dark roads, impaired judgment, and alcohol’s lingering effects proved catastrophic. Just three minutes into his drive, Alex swerved into an oncoming vehicle, causing a head-on collision. Both Alex and the driver of the other car sustained serious injuries.
The aftermath was a whirlwind of hospital visits, guilt, and, inevitably, legal consequences. The driver of the truck, Jack Snow, decided to file a personal injury lawsuit against Alex for the damages and injuries he sustained. But Jack Snow’s attorney, after learning of Ricki’s decision to allow Alex to drive while knowing he was intoxicated, saw grounds for a negligent entrustment claim.
Jack’s attorney argued that Ricki knowingly and negligently entrusted the vehicle to Alex, fully aware of his impaired state. They claimed that a reasonable person, under the same circumstances, would not have allowed an intoxicated individual access to a car, regardless of any perceived safety features.
Ricki’s decision, which was made out of concern and a wish to protect her son, had unintentionally opened her up to legal liability. In this hypothetical case, the doctrine of negligent entrustment squarely placed responsibility not only on Alex for deciding to drive but also on Ricki for allowing him to do so in the first place.
[ad_2]
