Robison v. Enter. Leasing Co. - South Cent., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00383-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00383-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-20-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Nature of motion - M.R.C.P. 56 - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - Negligent entrustment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J., dissents with separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY; Dismissal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-04-2009 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: GRANTED RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: CV07-022(F)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Brian Robison, Lisa Robison and Tess Robison |
T.K. MOFFETT |
|
|
| Appellee: | Enterprise Leasing Company - South Central, Inc. | DOMINIC JOHN OVELLA, DAVID BISHOP ESTES, SEAN PATRICK MOUNT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Nature of motion - M.R.C.P. 56 - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - Negligent entrustment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tess Robison was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Gregory Knight. Knight was driving at a high rate of speed when he lost control of the vehicle and allowed it to leave the highway. In the resulting accident, both Knight and Robison were thrown from the vehicle. Knight was killed, and Robison suffered severe injuries. Robison and her parents, Brian and Lisa Robison, brought suit against Knight’s estate, his father, James Knight, and Enterprise Leasing Company – South Central, Inc. The Robisons alleged that they had suffered damages – Robison’s personal injuries and lost income of all three plaintiffs – as a result of Knight’s negligent operation of the vehicle. They also alleged that Knight’s father had negligently entrusted him with the vehicle and that Enterprise had negligently rented the vehicle to James Knight, with the actual knowledge that the younger Knight would operate it. The claims against Knight’s estate and his father were subsequently resolved, and both of those defendants were dismissed from the suit. Enterprise then filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. The Robisons appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Nature of motion Various exhibits and other matters outside the record were submitted by the parties to the trial court. The trial court appeared to rely on some of the facts established through this evidence outside the pleadings, and its judgment recites that the trial court considered the parties’ respective motions detailed above and, consequently, matters outside the pleadings. Likewise, in their briefs on appeal, both parties have repeatedly cited to evidence appearing in the record but outside the pleadings. Therefore, the motion at issue is construed as one for summary judgment under M.R.C.P. 56. Throughout the proceedings, the parties and the court have called this a motion to dismiss under M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), but they have treated it like a summary judgment motion. The Robisons had notice of the nature of the motion and an opportunity to respond. Rule 12(b)’s requirement of an opportunity to respond and Rule 56(c)’s requirement that a summary judgment motion be served ten days before the hearing have been more than satisfied in this case. Issue 2: Negligent entrustment The Robisons argue that a question of fact exists as to whether Enterprise negligently entrusted the vehicle to Knight’s father, knowing that Knight – who was under the age of twenty-one – would operate it. Negligent entrustment is defined as one who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for 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 whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them. The record does indicate that Enterprise had initially refused to rent the car to Knight because of his age, but setting the father’s role aside, the Robisons have failed to show that it would have been negligent to entrust the vehicle directly to Knight in the first place. The proof of negligence offered in this case falls far short of a showing that Enterprise knew or should have known that Knight had a history of reckless driving or other dangerous behavior while operating an automobile. A claim of negligent entrustment cannot be sustained on Knight’s age – eighteen years – alone. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
