Our firm was not involved in the litigation discussed in this article.
A man smoked methamphetamine at 5:00 a.m. At about 2:00 p.m. he rented a truck from Budget. The following afternoon he ran over a woman in a crosswalk. At the scene an officer observed the driver exhibiting symptoms of methamphetamine use: fast heart rate, bloodshot eyes, droopy eyelids, little to no pupil reaction to light, and “two fresh, red injection marks” on his left arm. Results of a blood draw performed around 3:20 p.m. showed methamphetamine and amphetamine in his system. The woman sued Budget alleging negligent entrustment.[1]
The woman’s expert testified that given the amount of methamphetamine in the driver’s system at the time of his arrest, it was probable that he exhibited “characteristic effects” of methamphetamine intoxication when he rented the truck.
The trial court found that there is no evidence that the driver appeared impaired or otherwise incompetent at the time he rented the vehicle from Budget Truck Rental. The Court of Appeals agreed and upheld dismissal.
A person entrusting a vehicle to another in Washington may be liable under a theory of negligent entrustment only if that person knew, or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care, that the person to whom the vehicle was entrusted is reckless, heedless, or incompetent.
None of the three Budget agents who interacted with Turner noticed any unusual behavior or signs of intoxication.
The drug use on the day of the rental was nine hours prior to renting the truck. The driver testified that he is “high” for between two and eight hours after he uses methamphetamine, an assertion generally supported by the injured woman’s expert forensic toxicologist.
The driver testified that he had “been doing drugs for so long, I can function. I’m not completely out of it when I’m on drugs.”
The Court of Appeals noted that under dram shop case law the injured party must produce evidence that the impaired person was ‘apparently under the influence’ by direct, observational evidence at the time of the alleged overservice or by reasonable inference deduced from observation shortly thereafter. Under this rule, jurors are not permitted to make an inferential leap of the ‘driver’s BAC was X, so he must have appeared drunk’ type.”
By analogy the Court noted that the accident occurred about 24 hours after the truck was rented. Therefore the Court held that the expert testimony is insufficient to create a question of fact for trial.
This is the result of one Court of Appeals opinion. It is not a substitute for legal advice about your particular circumstances. Our firm was not involved in the case.
You may contact us for a free personal injury case evaluation.