Opinion
No. CV 03-0828572S
August 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The defendant, Thomas Belanger, has filed a motion for summary judgment dated February 16, 2007 as to the third count of the plaintiffs' amended complaint dated July 19, 2007. Count 3 sets forth a claim based on negligent entrustment.
The essential elements of the tort of negligent entrustment of an automobile is that the entrustor "knows or ought reasonably to know that one to whom he entrusts it is so incompetent to operate it upon the highways that the former ought to reasonably anticipate the likelihood of injury to others by reason of that incompetence, and such incompetence does result in injury." Greeley v. Cunningham, 116 Conn. 515, 520, 165 A. 678 (1933). Liability cannot be imposed on a defendant under a theory of negligent entrustment simply because the defendant permitted another person to operate the motor vehicle. Id., 116 Conn. 518. Liability can only be imposed if (1) there is actual or constructive knowledge that the person to whom the automobile is loaned is incompetent to operate the motor vehicle and (2) the injury resulted from that incompetence. Id. The mere fact that an accident occurred is insufficient to establish the second essential element.
In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant has submitted the affidavit of Thomas Belanger, which indicates that Mr. Belanger left the automobile in question with the keys at the residence of Heather Bolling, who he was dating. He gave Ms. Bolling permission to move the automobile because of parking restrictions. Maureen Sullivan is the mother of Heather Bolling, Thomas Belanger did not give Maureen Sullivan permission to use the car. In his affidavit, Thomas Belanger asserts that he was not aware of any dangerous propensities that either Heather Bolling or Maureen Sullivan may have had regarding the operation of a motor vehicle.
Since the claim is one of negligent entrustment, liability can only be imposed if there is actual or constructive knowledge that the person to whom the car is loaned is incompetent to operate a motor vehicle.
The allegations in the third count are as follows:
The injuries were caused by the negligence of Thomas Belanger in that he:
a. loaned his vehicle to Heather Bolling for her use when he knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that she did not maintain a valid Connecticut drivers license.
b. allowed Heather Boiling to use his vehicle when he knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that she would allow others, including family members, to drive the vehicle.
c. purchased a vehicle for Heather Bolling's use when he knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that she was irresponsible.
d. allowed Heather Boiling to use his vehicle when he knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that she would not abide by any instructions he gave her limiting her use of the vehicle.
These allegations do not allege facts that bear on the issue of incompetency of the person to whom the car is loaned. Also the documents filed in support of the motion for summary judgment show that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the claim of negligent entrustment.
Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Thomas Belanger is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the third count of the amended complaint as there is no genuine issue of material fact on the plaintiff's claim of negligent entrustment.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment as to the third count is granted.