In Gonzalez v. Villafana, the plaintiff sued the defendants for damages suffered in a car crash with a car operated by Nestor Villafana but owned by Ramon Walle. The case arose when Walle, a muffler shop owner, visited a friend at his tire shop, hoping to talk about buying some land from the friend. Villafana was also a friend of the tire shop owner visiting the shop. Walle was in the shop for 30 minutes when his wife called to tell him about a customer at the muffler shop. Villafana asked for a ride to the muffler shop so that he could get a taco nearby.
Walle drove him. At the muffler shop, both men left the car, with Walle assuming Villafana would go get something to eat. Walle left his keys in the ignition. However, 30 minutes later, another friend called to tell him he’d seen his car in an accident. Villafana had been driving the car. Walle didn’t know the car was gone until he was informed about the accident.
The plaintiff sued Walle for negligent entrustment and Villafana for negligence. Walle filed for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and severed the plaintiff’s claims against Walle from the claims against Villafana so that the judgment was final as to Walle.
The plaintiff appealed the granting of summary judgment. The appellate court explained that to establish negligent entrustment, she would need to show: (1) the owner entrusted the car (2) to an incompetent, unlicensed, or reckless driver, (3) the owner should have known or knew the driver was incompetent, unlicensed, or reckless, (4) the driver was negligent, and (5) the negligence was the legal cause of the accident.
In this case, the appellate court found that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence that one defendant entrusted the car to the other. The defendant argued that his deposition testimony conclusively removed the first element of negligent entrustment. He’d only brought the other defendant to his shop because he was hungry. The plaintiff argued that Walle had already testified that he didn’t habitually leave his keys in the ignition of his car and had left the keys there moments before the collision. She argued that this meant Walle had impliedly consented to Villafana’s use of the car.
The appellate court noted that Texas courts have rejected the notion of implied permission based on knowing where the keys are in other negligent entrustment cases. It reasoned that simply leaving the key in the ignition did not imply consent. The two defendants had almost no relationship, having only met 2-3 months before through their mutual friend who owned the tire shop, and Villafana had never driven his car before. Their prior socializing didn’t equal automatic consent.
The plaintiff argued that the trial court would set a new standard if it required a defendant to freely admit he entrusted a negligent driver with the car. The appellate court rejected this argument, explaining that in Texas, entrustment can be shown through direct or circumstantial evidence and without an admission. The trial court’s decision was affirmed.
If you are hurt in a car accident involving a borrowed car, the experienced San Antonio attorneys at Carabin & Shaw may be able to represent you and develop a sound strategy for handling your case. Call our office for more information at 1-800-862-1260.