CA 00-1554Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court CIVIL ACTION BRISTOL, SS
December 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON JOANNE CAPLAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff alleges that negligent driving by Michael Caplan causedthe death of her son. The defendant Joanne Caplan is the mother ofMichael Caplan. The plaintiff’s negligent entrustment claim againstJoanne Caplan alleges that she gave ownership of the accident vehicle toMichael Caplan knowing that he had a record of multiple motor vehicleviolations and license suspensions at the time of the gift.
The accident occurred on January 7, 1999. The defendant Joanne Caplangave her son Michael Caplan ownership of the car four-and-a-half monthsearlier, on August 26, 1998. Michael Caplan was twenty when his mothergave him ownership of the car. He was twenty-one on the date of theaccident. The plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence that MichaelCaplan did not have a valid driver’s license at the time his mother gavehim the car or at the time of the accident.
Under Massachusetts law, in order to prevail on a claim of negligententrustment of a motor vehicle, “it is necessary for the plaintiff toshow, among other things, that the defendant owned or controlled themotor vehicle concerned, and that the defendant gave the driverpermission to operate the vehicle.” Alioto v. Marnell, 402 Mass. 36, 40(1988); Barnstable County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Lally, 374 Mass. 602, 695-06 (1978); Leone v. Doran, 363 Mass. 1, 7 (1973). Atthe time of the accident in this case, the defendant parent did not ownor control the vehicle that was operated by her adult son.
The plaintiff relies on Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 390 andComment b, Illustration 6, as a basis for possible parental liability inthese circumstances. The court is of the opinion that Massachusetts lawwould follow the law of several other states in rejecting this theory.The court concludes that a negligent entrustment action cannot beestablished against a parent based on the parent’s gift or sale of amotor vehicle to an adult child who is a licensed driver, even if theparent has knowledge of the adult child’s bad driving record and priorlicense suspensions. See Broadwater v. Dorsey, 344 Md. 548, 688 A.2d 436,440-43 (1997) (citing cases from other states); see Mills v. Crone,63 Ark. App. 45, 973 S.W.2d 828, 829-831 and n. 1 (1998) (noting that”Section 308 of the Restatement limits the application of section 390″);Johnson v. Johnson, 611 N.W.2d 823, 826-27 (Minn.App. 2000).[1]
ORDER The defendant Joanne Caplan’s motion for summary judgment is allowed.
_____________________ December 26, 2002 Charles J. Hely Justice