Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Lan, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Vince v. Wilson

(1989)

Vermont Supreme Court - 151 Vt. 425

tl;dr:

Plaintiff injured in a car accident sued the grandaunt who purchased the car and the salesman and car sales place; Court held that there was a prima facie case for negligent entrustment for all three.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Vince v. Wilson

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Vince v. Wilson case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingVince v. Wilson case brief facts & holding

Facts:Plaintiff was seriously injured in an automobile incident, and brought...

Holding:The VT Supreme Court ruled that the claims against Gardner...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Vince v. Wilson case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Vince v. Wilson | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Mahady, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves a personal injury claim arising from a car accident where the plaintiff was a passenger in a car purchased by her grandnephew with funding provided by the defendant Wilson. The trial court erred in directing verdicts in favor of Ace Auto Sales and its president Gary Gardner. The claim against Wilson for negligent entrustment was submitted to the jury, and they returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the decision to submit the question to the jury and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiff argues that the tort of negligent entrustment should apply to a person who knowingly provides funding to an incompetent driver to purchase a vehicle and to a person who knowingly sells a vehicle to an incompetent driver. Defendants argue that recovery under a claim of negligent entrustment should be limited to situations where the defendant is the owner or has the right to control the instrumentality entrusted. Some courts have applied the rule of negligent entrustment more broadly, allowing recovery against automobile dealers or individuals who funded the purchase of a car for an incompetent driver. Liability is established if the defendant had ownership and control over the instrumentality at the time it was turned over to an incompetent individual. The Restatement of Torts serves as the basis for both lines of cases. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a person who supplies a chattel to another, knowing or having reason to know that the user is likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to themselves or others, is liable for resulting physical harm. This rule applies to sellers, lessors, donors, lenders, and all kinds of bailors, regardless of whether the bailment is gratuitous or for a consideration. The cases that limit liability to situations where the defendant owns or has control over the instrumentality have been criticized by legal commentators. The negligence of the owner in entrusting the instrumentality to an incompetent user, combined with the user's careless operation, creates liability.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Vince v. Wilson case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Vince v. Wilson case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Vince v. Wilson

Chat for Vince v. Wilson
brief-529
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.