Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffappealtrialtrust
plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialtrustappellantappellee

Related Cases

Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson, 746 F.2d 1563, 241 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 53 USLW 2262, 11 Media L. Rep. 1001
View Case »
Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc., 271 Va. 313, 626 S.E.2d 428, 17 A.L.R.6th 827
View Case »
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 194 Wis.2d 247, 533 N.W.2d 759
View Case »
Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,489, 8 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1586, 1980 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 24,570
View Case »
Telega v. Security Bureau, Inc., 719 A.2d 372
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Snowhite v. State, Use of Tennant, 243 Md. 291, 221 A.2d 342, 19 A.L.R.3d 1155

Facts

Walter W. Tennant was killed in a collision with a gasoline tank truck driven by Clarence Henderson, who was intoxicated at the time. Henderson had a history of reckless driving and was known to drink heavily before driving. Snowhite, the employer, had allowed Henderson to use the truck for personal purposes and was aware of his drinking habits. The jury found that Snowhite had negligently entrusted the truck to Henderson, leading to the fatal accident.

In this case the jury in the Superior Court of Baltimore City answered certain special issues on which a judgment for $90,000 was entered in favor of the plaintiffs below, Julia A. Tennant, surviving widow and Michelle Tennant, Surviving child of Walter W. Tennant, deceased, and for $4,000 in favor of Mrs. Tennant as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, against Harold Snowhite, individually and trading as Service Oil Company (Snowhite), one of the defendants below and the appellant in this Court.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding that Snowhite negligently entrusted the gasoline tank truck to Henderson, whose intoxicated driving caused the accident?

Did the trial court err in finding that Snowhite negligently entrusted the gasoline tank truck to Henderson, whose intoxicated driving caused the accident?

Rule

An employer may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that the employer knew or should have known that the employee was unfit to operate the vehicle.

An employer may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that the employer knew or should have known that the employee was unfit to operate the vehicle.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, which included Henderson's history of reckless driving and Snowhite's knowledge of Henderson's drinking habits. The jury concluded that Snowhite had negligently entrusted the truck to Henderson, as he was aware of Henderson's incompetence and allowed him to use the truck for personal purposes, despite knowing he was often intoxicated.

The court analyzed the evidence presented, which included Henderson's history of reckless driving and Snowhite's knowledge of Henderson's drinking habits. The jury concluded that Snowhite had negligently entrusted the truck to Henderson, as he was aware of Henderson's incompetence and allowed him to use the truck for personal purposes, despite knowing he was often intoxicated.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligent entrustment by Snowhite.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligent entrustment by Snowhite.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Julia A. Tennant and Michelle Tennant, prevailed because the jury found that Snowhite had negligently entrusted the truck to an unfit driver, leading to the fatal accident.

The plaintiffs and appellees have filed a cross-appeal challenging the alleged error of the trial court in its instruction to the jury in regard to damages, but presses the cross-appeal in this Court only if the judgment in the lower court is reversed.

You must be