Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1996–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Earsing v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2014If such knowledge can be imputed, the supplier owes a duty to foreseeable parties to withhold the chattel from the entrustee” (Earsing v Nelson, 212 AD2d 66, 69-70 [4th Dept 1995] [affirming denial of motion to dismiss negligent entrustment claim] [emphasis added]; see also Weeks v City of New York, 181 Misc 2d 39, 46 [Sup Ct, Richmond County 1999] [declining to dismiss negligent entrustment claim]; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 390). 2001Of course, without the requisite knowledge, the tort of negligent entrustment does not lie (see, Earsing v Nelson, 212 AD2d 66 [dismissing a negligent entrustment claim against the manufacturer of a BB gun because a dealer’s knowledge of the individual’s ability to use the gun safely could not be imputed to the manufacturer]). | 1 | 2 |
Weeks v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2014If such knowledge can be imputed, the supplier owes a duty to foreseeable parties to withhold the chattel from the entrustee” (Earsing v Nelson, 212 AD2d 66, 69-70 [4th Dept 1995] [affirming denial of motion to dismiss negligent entrustment claim] [emphasis added]; see also Weeks v City of New York, 181 Misc 2d 39, 46 [Sup Ct, Richmond County 1999] [declining to dismiss negligent entrustment claim]; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 390). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rios v. Smith
green
2 sentences2023"Whether a particular object qualifies as a dangerous instrument depends on the nature of the instrument and the facts pertaining to its use, including the particular attributes of the minor using or operating the item" ( Rios v Smith , 95 NY2d 647, 653 ). 2001The owner or possessor of a dangerous instrument is under a duty to entrust it to a responsible person whose use does not create an unreasonable risk of harm to others (see, Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d 647 ; *237 Splawnik v Di Caprio, 146 AD2d 333, 335 ; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 390). | 2 | 2001–2023 |
Masone v. Gianotti
green
2 sentences2004Here, the parents are liable as a matter of law under the doctrine of negligent entrustment (see, Masone, supra). 2004Here, the parents are liable as a matter of law under the doctrine of negligent entrustment ( see , Masone, supra ). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Zuckerman v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2004Once the moving party has made a showing of sufficient evidence, the burden shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to put forth evidence in admissible form to establish a triable issue of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). 2004Once the moving party has made a showing of sufficient evidence, the burden shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to put forth evidence in admissible form to establish a triable issue of fact ( Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Splawnik v. Di Caprio
green
1 sentence2001The owner or possessor of a dangerous instrument is under a duty to entrust it to a responsible person whose use does not create an unreasonable risk of harm to others (see, Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d 647 ; *237 Splawnik v Di Caprio, 146 AD2d 333, 335 ; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 390). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek
green
1 sentence2001Finally, plaintiffs and the District Court identify an alternative basis for imposing a duty of care here under the negligent entrustment doctrine, arising out of the firearms manufacturers’ authority over “downstream distributors and retailers” to whom their products are delivered (see, Hamilton v Accu-Tek, supra, 62 F Supp 2d, at 821 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lalomia v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance
green
1 sentence1996The Appellate Division determined that a clause in the father’s policy which excluded coverage for damages "directly related to the 'ownership, maintenance, operation and use’ ” of a vehicle did not preclude coverage of a negligent entrustment claim arising from the accident. ( 35 AD2d, at 117 .) We affirmed. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.