negligent entrustment doctrine in Colorado

2015Id. at 355-56 . 18 The negligent entrustment doctrine, which "is part of the law of negligence in this state," id. at 357 , articulates a set of standards that, if met, establish the duty element of negligence, Peterson v. Halsted, 829 P.2d 373, 378 (Colo.1992). ¶ 9 The doctrine provides: One who supplies ... chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others ... is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to t

2015Id. at 355-56 . 18 The negligent entrustment doctrine, which "is part of the law of negligence in this state," id. at 357 , articulates a set of standards that, if met, establish the duty element of negligence, Peterson v. Halsted, 829 P.2d 373, 378 (Colo.1992). ¶ 9 The doctrine provides: One who supplies ... chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others ... is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to t

2015Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965) (hereinafter Restatement); see Casebolt , 829 P.2d at 355-63 (adopting Restatement section 390 as providing the framework to analyze the negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle); see also Liebelt v. Bob Penkus Volvo-Mazda, Inc. , 961 P.2d 1147, 1149 (Colo. App. 1998) (stating that liability for negligent entrustment of an automobile depends on whether the supplier knew or had reason to know the likelihood of harm). ¶10        A supplier has “reason to know” that a person is likely to use the chattel in a manner involving unreasonable ri

2015Id. at 355-56 . 18 The negligent entrustment doctrine, which "is part of the law of negligence in this state," id. at 357 , articulates a set of standards that, if met, establish the duty element of negligence, Peterson v. Halsted, 829 P.2d 373, 378 (Colo.1992). ¶ 9 The doctrine provides: One who supplies ... chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others ... is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to t

2015Id . at 355-56. ¶8        The negligent entrustment doctrine, which “is part of the law of negligence in this state,” id . at 357, articulates a set of standards that, if met, establish the duty element of negligence, Peterson v. Halstead , 829 P.2d 373, 378 (Colo. 1992). ¶9        The doctrine provides: One who supplies . . . chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others . . . is subject to

2015Id. at 355-56 . 18 The negligent entrustment doctrine, which "is part of the law of negligence in this state," id. at 357 , articulates a set of standards that, if met, establish the duty element of negligence, Peterson v. Halsted, 829 P.2d 373, 378 (Colo.1992). ¶ 9 The doctrine provides: One who supplies ... chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others ... is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to t

1992Moreover, in Dickens v. Barnham, 69 Colo. 349 , 194 P. 356 (1920), we recognized a tort in circumstances arguably fitting the doctrine of negligent entrustment, although we did not use the term “negligent entrustment” in analyzing the case. 5 See Douglass, 602 F.2d at 937 , and Hasegawa, 684 P.2d at 939 , both relying in part on Dickens in recognizing the negligent entrustment doctrine.

1992Moreover, in Dickens v. Barnham, 69 Colo. 349 , 194 P. 356 (1920), we recognized a tort in circumstances arguably fitting the doctrine of negligent entrustment, although we did not use the term “negligent entrustment” in analyzing the case. 5 See Douglass, 602 F.2d at 937 , and Hasegawa, 684 P.2d at 939 , both relying in part on Dickens in recognizing the negligent entrustment doctrine.

2017Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 130 P.3d 1011, 1019 (Colo. 2006); Grease Monkey Int’l, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468, 473 (Colo. 1995). 9 erred by admitting the driver’s record because where agency is admitted, an employee’s driving record “can serve no purpose except to inflame the jury.” Id. at 666. ¶22 Three years after Houlihan, California applied the same rationale to a negligent entrustment claim in Armenta v. Churchill, 267 P.2d 303 , 308–09 (Cal. 1954).

2017Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 130 P.3d 1011, 1019 (Colo. 2006); Grease Monkey Int’l, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468, 473 (Colo. 1995). 9 erred by admitting the driver’s record because where agency is admitted, an employee’s driving record “can serve no purpose except to inflame the jury.” Id. at 666. ¶22 Three years after Houlihan, California applied the same rationale to a negligent entrustment claim in Armenta v. Churchill, 267 P.2d 303 , 308–09 (Cal. 1954).

2015See Kinney , 508 P.2d at 1237 (interpreting section 49­339 of the Idaho Code, which requires car owners to check a driver’s license before lending their cars); Seward , 452 N.E.2d at 563 (reviewing a negligent entrustment claim under general negligence principles); Barnes , 464 S.W.2d at 504 (reviewing a negligence per se claim under Texas Code article 6687b, section 36).

2015See Kinney , 508 P.2d at 1237 (interpreting section 49­339 of the Idaho Code, which requires car owners to check a driver’s license before lending their cars); Seward , 452 N.E.2d at 563 (reviewing a negligent entrustment claim under general negligence principles); Barnes , 464 S.W.2d at 504 (reviewing a negligence per se claim under Texas Code article 6687b, section 36).

2015See Kinney , 508 P.2d at 1237 (interpreting section 49­339 of the Idaho Code, which requires car owners to check a driver’s license before lending their cars); Seward , 452 N.E.2d at 563 (reviewing a negligent entrustment claim under general negligence principles); Barnes , 464 S.W.2d at 504 (reviewing a negligence per se claim under Texas Code article 6687b, section 36).

1992Casebolt, 829 P.2d at 358 . [7] Cf., e.g., Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462, 466 (Colo.1989) (detailing policy considerations relevant to determination of duty); University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54, 57 (Colo.1987) (same); Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1127-28 (Colo.1986) (same).

1992Casebolt, 829 P.2d at 358 . 7 Cf., e.g., Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462, 466 (Colo.1989) (detailing policy considerations relevant to determination of duty); University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54, 57 (Colo.1987) (same); Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1127-28 (Colo.1986) (same).

1992Casebolt, 829 P.2d at 358 . [7] Cf., e.g., Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462, 466 (Colo.1989) (detailing policy considerations relevant to determination of duty); University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54, 57 (Colo.1987) (same); Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1127-28 (Colo.1986) (same).

1992Casebolt, 829 P.2d at 358 . 7 Cf., e.g., Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462, 466 (Colo.1989) (detailing policy considerations relevant to determination of duty); University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54, 57 (Colo.1987) (same); Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1127-28 (Colo.1986) (same).

1992Casebolt, 829 P.2d at 358 . [7] Cf., e.g., Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462, 466 (Colo.1989) (detailing policy considerations relevant to determination of duty); University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54, 57 (Colo.1987) (same); Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1127-28 (Colo.1986) (same).

1992Casebolt, 829 P.2d at 358 . 7 Cf., e.g., Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462, 466 (Colo.1989) (detailing policy considerations relevant to determination of duty); University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54, 57 (Colo.1987) (same); Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1127-28 (Colo.1986) (same).

1992As the Michigan Supreme Court observed in Moning v. Alfono, the doctrine of negligent entrustment is “one of the many specific rules concerning particular conduct that have evolved in the application of the general standard of care.” 400 Mich. 425 , 254 N.W.2d 759, 767 (1977).

1992As the Michigan Supreme Court observed in Moning v. Alfono, the doctrine of negligent entrustment is “one of the many specific rules concerning particular conduct that have evolved in the application of the general standard of care.” 400 Mich. 425 , 254 N.W.2d 759, 767 (1977).

1992Cf. Butcher, 728 P.2d at 389-90 (incorporating evaluation of policy considerations in determining existence of duty under a negligent en-trustment claim analyzed under § 308).