Riley et al. v. Barreras

Facts

Plaintiff Anthony Barreras filed a personal injury action following a motor vehicle collision that William Coleman caused when a car he parked rolled down the hill and into the roadway. Plaintiff sued Coleman, Maxwell Riley, and Fellowship Deliverance Ministries, Inc. Riley owned Fellowship, which operated a homeless shelter where Coleman was a resident. 

The evidence showed that Riley owned the car Coleman was driving and that it was insured through Fellowship. Coleman was listed as an approved driver on the car’s insurance policy. 

On the date of the wreck, Coleman drove the car to an auto parts store and parked the car on a hill in the store’s parking lot. After he got out of the vehicle, the car rolled down the hill and into the roadway, crashing into Plaintiff Barreras’ vehicle. Barreras filed suit and named Riley and Fellowship based on claims of negligent entrustment and vicarious liability. 

Riley and Fellowship moved for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims. The trial court denied Defendants’ motion and the Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision and held summary judgment was proper and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Riley and Fellowship.

Issues & Holdings

The issues in this case were as follows:

1. Whether Plaintiff submitted evidence sufficient to support a negligent entrustment claim?
2. Whether there was evidence to establish vicarious liability?

The court held that:

1. The Plaintiff did not show that there was any evidence from which a jury could find that Defendants negligently entrusted the car to Coleman. 
2. There was no evidence to establish that Defendants were vicariously liable.

Reasoning

On the negligent entrustment claim, Court of Appeals observed that the claim requires evidence that the owner of the vehicle entrusted his/her vehicle to someone who they knew was incompetent to operate the vehicle or had a history of reckless driving offenses. Here, there was no evidence that Defendants had actual knowledge that Coleman was incompetent to drive the car, or that he had a history of being a habitually reckless driver. 

On the question of vicarious liability, the Court of Appeals noted that ownership of a vehicle alone is insufficient to establish an owner’s liability. See, e.g., Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Hamilton, 216 Ga. App. 659 (1995). There must be an employment or agency relationship. Here, the Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of showing any evidence that either relationship existed. For the employment relationship, there was simply no evidence that either Defendant ever employed Coleman.

For the agency relationship to exist, the Plaintiff had to show that the relationship of principal and agent existed. This required a showing that the principal (that is, the Defendants), expressly or by implication, authorized another (Coleman) to act for him or subsequently ratified the acts of another (Coleman) on his behalf. See Doherty v. Brown, 339 Ga. App. 567 (2016), rev’d on other grounds by Southeastern Pain Specialists, P.C. v. Brown, 303 Ga. 265 (2018). The only evidence of agency the Plaintiff submitted was that Coleman was insured on the auto policy and that Coleman was allowed to drive the car. However, the Court of Appeals concluded this was not sufficient to establish an agency relationship. The Court reasoned that there was no evidence showing that Coleman was actually acting for Defendants at the time of the collision, and in fact, Riley did not even know why Coleman had been driving the car that day. Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals determined that summary judgment was appropriate for the Defendants on the vicarious liability claim. 

Conclusion

This case demonstrates the high standard for negligent entrustment claims. You must show actual knowledge of the driver’s incompetence or habitual recklessness. Even if you show incompetence or habitual recklessness, the actual knowledge requirement is critical. Constructive knowledge is not enough. When you have a case where you have asserted a negligent entrustment claim, make sure your written discovery and depositions are focused on both requirements of (1) incompetence/habitual recklessness, and (2) the owner’s actual knowledge. 

To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, learn more here.

Citation: Riley et al v. Barreras, No. A23A0553 (Ga. Ct. App. June 21, 2023)