negligent entrustment claim in Michigan

1981Fredericks v General Motors Corp, 48 Mich App 580 ; 211 NW2d 44 (1973), lv den 390 Mich 805 (1973).

1981As noted in Fredericks, supra, 585 , "the Restatement makes clear that the chattel need not be proved defective before recovery is permitted under the doctrine of negligent entrustment”.

2026Tyus relied on the reasoning from Tortora v Gen Motors Corp, 373 Mich 563, 567-568 ; 130 NW2d 21 (1964), which in the context of a negligent entrustment claim, held that the defendant employer was not required to actively seek its employee’s driving record although it was publicly available.

2026Tyus relied on the reasoning from Tortora v Gen Motors Corp, 373 Mich 563, 567-568 ; 130 NW2d 21 (1964), which in the context of a negligent entrustment claim, held that the defendant employer was not required to actively seek its employee’s driving record although it was publicly available.

2026Tyus, 64 Mich App at 91-92 .

2019This Court will not consider the issue because “[a] party who fails to brief the merits of an alleged error has abandoned the issue on appeal.” Villadsen v Mason Co Road Comm’n, 268 Mich App 287, 303 ; 706 NW2d 897 (2005), aff’d on other grounds 475 Mich 857 (2006).

2019This Court will not consider the issue because “[a] party who fails to brief the merits of an alleged error has abandoned the issue on appeal.” Villadsen v Mason Co Road Comm’n, 268 Mich App 287, 303 ; 706 NW2d 897 (2005), aff’d on other grounds 475 Mich 857 (2006).

2019This Court will not consider the issue because “[a] party who fails to brief the merits of an alleged error has abandoned the issue on appeal.” Villadsen v Mason Co Road Comm’n, 268 Mich App 287, 303 ; 706 NW2d 897 (2005), aff’d on other grounds 475 Mich 857 (2006).

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

2018For instance, in Perin v Peuler (On Rehearing), the Supreme Court explained that the plaintiff in a negligent entrustment action has the burden of proving that the motor vehicle was driven with the permission and authority of the owner; that the entrustee was in fact an incompetent driver; and that the owner knew at the time of the entrustment that the entrustee was incompetent or unqualified to 4 Gorman, 302 Mich App at 116 , quoting West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 5 Hines v Volkswagen of America, Inc, 265 Mich App 432, 443 ; 695 NW2d 84 (2005). 6 In re Smith

1994Barksdale v Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 186 Mich App 286, 291 ; 463 NW2d 258 (1990).

1994Barksdale v Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 186 Mich App 286, 291 ; 463 NW2d 258 (1990).

1990On the question whether defendant was an "owner” of the vehicle, we agree with the trial court that Moore v Ford Motor Credit Co, 166 Mich App 100 ; 420 NW2d 577 (1988), lv den 431 Mich 858 (1988), is controlling.

1990On the question whether defendant was an "owner” of the vehicle, we agree with the trial court that Moore v Ford Motor Credit Co, 166 Mich App 100 ; 420 NW2d 577 (1988), lv den 431 Mich 858 (1988), is controlling.

1987Compare also Romeo v Van Otterloo, 117 Mich App 333 ; 323 NW2d 693 (1982) (recognizing an action in negligence for an employer’s failure to properly supervise an employee who was serving as a host at a party where intoxicated beverages were furnished); Klotz v Persenaire, 138 Mich App 638, 642-643 ; 360 NW2d 255 (1984) (recognizing a negligent-entrustment claim for allowing an intoxicated person to take a boat out on the lake when the defendant knew or should have known of his intoxicated state).

1987Compare also Romeo v Van Otterloo, 117 Mich App 333 ; 323 NW2d 693 (1982) (recognizing an action in negligence for an employer’s failure to properly supervise an employee who was serving as a host at a party where intoxicated beverages were furnished); Klotz v Persenaire, 138 Mich App 638, 642-643 ; 360 NW2d 255 (1984) (recognizing a negligent-entrustment claim for allowing an intoxicated person to take a boat out on the lake when the defendant knew or should have known of his intoxicated state).

1979Such an approach was followed by the Court in Butler v Raupp, 65 Mich App 20, 23-24 ; 236 NW2d 748 (1975): "Defendants Scollin further argue that the negligent entrustment claim was not in issue at trial because there was no mention of it in the pretrial summary.

1979Such an approach was followed by the Court in Butler v Raupp, 65 Mich App 20, 23-24 ; 236 NW2d 748 (1975): "Defendants Scollin further argue that the negligent entrustment claim was not in issue at trial because there was no mention of it in the pretrial summary.

1973While it may be true, in Michigan at least, that the negligent entrustment doctrine has been used primarily in motor vehicle cases (See, e.g., Perin v Peuler [On Rehearing], 373 Mich 531, 537; 130 NW2d 4, 7-8 [1964]; Kloosterman v Kalamazoo City Lines Inc, 21 Mich App 513 ; 175 NW2d 516 [1970], aff’d 386 Mich 430 ; 192 NW2d 258 [1971]), the theory of negligent entrustment does not hinge on the nature of the chattel, but on the supply of the chattel to a probable negligent user.

1973While it may be true, in Michigan at least, that the negligent entrustment doctrine has been used primarily in motor vehicle cases (See, e.g., Perin v Peuler [On Rehearing], 373 Mich 531, 537; 130 NW2d 4, 7-8 [1964]; Kloosterman v Kalamazoo City Lines Inc, 21 Mich App 513 ; 175 NW2d 516 [1970], aff’d 386 Mich 430 ; 192 NW2d 258 [1971]), the theory of negligent entrustment does not hinge on the nature of the chattel, but on the supply of the chattel to a probable negligent user.

1973While it may be true, in Michigan at least, that the negligent entrustment doctrine has been used primarily in motor vehicle cases (See, e.g., Perin v Peuler [On Rehearing], 373 Mich 531, 537; 130 NW2d 4, 7-8 [1964]; Kloosterman v Kalamazoo City Lines Inc, 21 Mich App 513 ; 175 NW2d 516 [1970], aff’d 386 Mich 430 ; 192 NW2d 258 [1971]), the theory of negligent entrustment does not hinge on the nature of the chattel, but on the supply of the chattel to a probable negligent user.

1973While it may be true, in Michigan at least, that the negligent entrustment doctrine has been used primarily in motor vehicle cases (See, e.g., Perin v Peuler [On Rehearing], 373 Mich 531, 537; 130 NW2d 4, 7-8 [1964]; Kloosterman v Kalamazoo City Lines Inc, 21 Mich App 513 ; 175 NW2d 516 [1970], aff’d 386 Mich 430 ; 192 NW2d 258 [1971]), the theory of negligent entrustment does not hinge on the nature of the chattel, but on the supply of the chattel to a probable negligent user.