Harris v. Hamilton

15 Citing cases

  1. Treadaway v. Progr. North.

    720 So. 2d 693 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 6 times
    Rejecting claim that the insured was "somehow using the vehicle by allowing his excluded spouse to drive"

    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 In their second assignment of error, plaintiffs argue that because Mr. McCabe entrusted his vehicle to an excluded, unlicensed driver, Progressive should be liable for their injuries under the theory of negligent entrustment as recognized by this Court's decision in Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990). We disagree.

  2. Riser v. Acadiana Limousine

    693 So. 2d 330 (La. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    Generally, an owner of a vehicle is not personally liable for damages which occur while another is operating the vehicle. Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1, 3 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990); Friday v. Mutz, 483 So.2d 1269, 1271 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986). Exceptions to this rule occur only when the driver is on a mission for the owner of the vehicle, when the driver is an agent or employee of the owner, and when the owner is himself negligent in entrusting the vehicle to an incompetent driver.

  3. Jones v. Western Preferred Casualty Co.

    633 So. 2d 667 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 9 times

    Generally, an owner of a vehicle is not personally liable for damages which occur while another is operating the vehicle. Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1, 3 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990); Friday v. Mutz, 483 So.2d 1269, 1271 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986). Exceptions to this rule occur only when the driver is on a mission for the owner of the vehicle, when the driver is an agent or employee of the owner, and when the owner is himself negligent in entrusting the vehicle to an incompetent driver.

  4. Smith v. Fortenberry

    Civil Action 24-1647 (E.D. La. Jul. 31, 2024)

    Stokes v. Stewart, 1999-0878 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/00), 774 So.2d 1215, 1218 (citing Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1, 3 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990)). There are a few exceptions to this rule.

  5. Gilmore v. WWL-TV

    Civil Action No. 01-3606 Section "N" (4) (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2002)

    even with his knowledge and consent, unless the third person was his agent, servant or employee and was acting within the scope of his agency' or employment at the time of the accident or unless the owner himself is negligent in entrusting the vehicle to an incompetent person. See Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1, 3 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990); and Zazzi v. Ridgeway International, Inc., 1999 WL 627387 (E.D. La.) (Livaudais, J.). WWL's motion is well-founded. Because the matter is unopposed and that it otherwise appears from a review of the record and the applicable lax\ that the defendant is entitled to the relief requested, accordingly IT IS ORDERED that WWL's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

  6. Willett v. Hawkins

    962 So. 2d 1232 (La. Ct. App. 2007)

    Moreover, the trial court committed legal error in awarding damages based on the repair estimate, which constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value, as there was no testimony from the witness who prepared the estimate. See Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1, 4 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990). Thus, Cleve Willett presented no viable proof of his damages, and is not entitled to recover from Mr. Hawkins.

  7. Stokes v. Stewart

    774 So. 2d 1215 (La. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 18 times
    In Stokes, the plaintiff sued a non-driver defendant for both compensatory and La.Civ.C. art. 2315.4 damages under theories of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment.

    Generally, an owner of a vehicle is not personally liable for damages which occur while another is operating the vehicle. Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1, 3 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990). Exceptions to this rule occur only when the driver is on a mission for the owner of the vehicle, when the driver is an agent or employee of the owner, and when the owner is himself negligent in entrusting the vehicle to an incompetent driver.Jones v. Western Preferred Casualty Company, 633 So.2d 667, 669 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1993), writ denied, 94-0273 (La. 4/4/94), 635 So.2d 1123.

  8. Dolmo v. Williams

    753 So. 2d 844 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 7 times
    In Dolmo v. Williams, 99-0169 (La.App. 4th Cir.9/22/99), 753 So.2d 844, the court was faced with a similar issue in a case involving a three vehicle rear-end collision.

    See Aucoin v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, Sup. 1998, 97-1938, 97-1967 (La. 4/24/98). Nevertheless, the same result occurs according to the rationale in Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1, 4 (4th Cir. 1990) — "Under the provisions of CCP Art. 1812 and CC Art. 2324, this court has previously recognized that liability may be assessed against a non-party, resulting in reduction of the plaintiff's recovery so the extent of the non-party's liability." Also, lest we forget it, the record does not support any finding of fault on behalf of Darryl L. Williams. Hence, he is entitled to be dismissed from the lawsuit.

  9. Matthews v. Arkla Lubricants

    740 So. 2d 787 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 24 times

    Generally, an owner of a vehicle is not personally liable for damages which occur when another is operating the vehicle. Riser v. Acadiana Limousine Service, Inc., 96-1687 (La.App. 3d Cir. 04/30/97), 693 So.2d 330, writ denied, 97-1420 (La. 09/19/97), 701 So.2d 173; Jones v. Western Preferred Casualty Co., 633 So.2d 667 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1993), writ denied, 94-0273 (La. 04/04/94), 635 So.2d 1123; Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990); Friday v. Mutz, 483 So.2d 1269 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1986). The exceptions to this rule are when the driver is on a mission for the owner of the vehicle, when the driver is an agent or employee of the owner, and when the owner is himself negligent in entrusting the vehicle to an incompetent driver.

  10. Joseph v. Dickerson

    728 So. 2d 1066 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court found that Judith Dickerson was liable for the damages caused by her daughter. Ordinarily, an owner of a vehicle is not liable for damages which occur while another is operating the vehicle. Harris v. Hamilton, 569 So.2d 1 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990); Friday v. Mutz, 483 So.2d 1269 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986). However, an exception to this rule has been established when the driver is "on a mission for the owner of the vehicle" or when the driver "is an agent or employee of the owner" or when the owner has negligently entrusted the vehicle to someone who, to the owner, should be known to be an incompetent driver.