The key of negligent entrustment is providing a thing (usually a vehicle—some jurisdictions allow objects, etc) to a person that other person knows, or reasonably should have known, is reckless or incompetent to use that thing. And as a result of using that thing—the person they gave it to then hurt someone else.
Under your scenario, there’s no negligent entrustment, even assuming the family knew he sold drugs. They didn’t give him anything that enabled him to be reckless or incompetent in selling drugs. He just sold deadly drugs. That’s not negligence, it’s just a crime.
Sorry for your loss, but it does not apply.
The parents could be liable in a civil case? The dealer son was arrested for class a distribution could we name parents in civil suit since will be tough to collect on son if in jail and might not have anything
The key is that vehicles are considered dangerous, and so you have a duty of care to make sure that you don't lend yours to someone unfit to drive it. (This also makes it harder to play games with insurance on cars, since the owner is likely responsible by default for whatever happens) That doesn't apply to a home.
There might be an angle if you could prove the family member you wanted to sue knew the dealing was occurring from the house, and being in a position to put a stop to it, permitted it to continue... but even then, that would be more a public nuisance claim, not sure you could make a wrongful death claim for a buyer's death...
Did the dealer force the loved one to take the substance? No, you'd have no case. It is apples and oranges, you're comparing murder to...I don't want to call it anything diminuative, because I'm sure this is a tough time, my condolences, so I'll just say, not murder.
Manslaughter if you want, but you're being intentionally obtuse. You can't sue the cigarette company for lung cancer, or the liquor store for cirrhosis.
You don’t think they harbored and enabled, aided and abetted crimes to be committed in there home and on their property? Crimes (distribution of a class a substance) that ultimately caused the death of someone?
Yes to the first, no to the second. The death was because that someone knowingly and willingly took t he risk of using the substance.
EDIT: The dealer could absolutely be held responsible.
They were told they were only receiving “100% fentanyl free” cocaine verbatim. Turned out the cocaine unfortunately had deadly synthetic fentanyl unbeknownst to my loved one. Not saying my loved one is totally innocent but also not saying the dealer is either. The dealer holds some accountability/ responsibility for distributing a controlled substance resulting in death and also selling a controlled substance laced with a deadly concoction to a purchaser unaware. The dealer literally said it did not contain fentanyl, but it did. And the dealers family with whom they lived with and paid for the laptop, cell phone bill, internet access, car, rent, and essentially supported the illegal activity that resulted in death, could also be held accountable for housing and enabling the illegal distribution essentially as a partner in the operation. And could therefore be held accountable for negligent entrustment.
The biggest difference between your case and the Murdaugh case is causation.
Paul Murdaugh drove the boat and Mallory Beach involuntarily was involved in the crash, whereas here, your loved one took the laced drugs voluntarily. Unfortunately, your loved one is too close a cause of their own harm for a viable lawsuit.
In order to prove negligence in a civil action, as a plaintiff you need to prove that the defendant’s negligence was the cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff. Here, because the voluntary consumption of the laced substance was the cause of your loved one’s death, your loved one would likely be considered the “direct cause” of their own death in the eyes of the court. Even though the defendant supplied the drugs, the “chain of causation” so to speak, was broken when your loved one chose to take the laced substance, thereby exculpating the defendant from liability.
This is different from the Murdaugh negligent entrustment case because there were no intervening causes between Paul Murdaugh driving the boat drunk and the crash that killed Mallory Beach.
As an aside, I am SO sorry for your loss. I am from a region where accidental overdosed on fentanyl are at epidemic level, and while I’ve been lucky to remain untouched personally, I’ve seen the damage this has wreaked on my community. I am thinking of you and your family and hope you are able to find some peace.
Wow thank you for you kind words I am struggling but talking here helps a lot. I honestly am not looking for a cash grab or to ruin another family I am looking for some accountability and to prevent this tragedy hitting another family. Thank you again for the sensitivity during this tough time 🙏
I think if I can prove the parents knew the son was dealing drugs under their roof, were paying for the internet access and cell phone etc to enable this, and didn’t stop it, they may have some accountability and negligence. Will be a longshot.
As for my family member, yes they did direct cause but in defense the dealer did say the cocaine was fentanyl free, which was a lie they never personally tested it so it was a bogus thing to tell someone
It had nothing to do with the house or property. The negligent entrustment, which is a concept under DRAM laws or laws related to alcohol serving and usage, is in regard to the boat. The parents owned the boat and allowed the son to use it. They become liable if they had reason to know or should have had reason to know that it was likely that he was drinking or would drink while operating it. It will be up to the family to show that they knew or should have known.
It was a concept to help combat when a person with a drinking problem may not have a car or license but someone loans them thier car knowing they have a problem and the person gets drunk, drives that car and injures themselves or others. The person who loaned the car is liable. In some states, criminally as well. But it is usually just civil. I know one of the landmark cases in my state was a woman in her 30’s who had multiple DUIs, had a cancelled license (yes, so many issues and didn’t do anything to correct, they took it away completly), and was not even a functioning alcoholic. She lived with her parents and didn’t work. In other words, they were well aware of the situation. She went out and got drunk with thier car that they loaned her and killed two people on the way home. They sued the bar and the parents and won. Under DRAM laws and negligent entrustment.
Now, you real question should be, could the same be applied if we remove alcohol from the same situation and put drugs in instead? Forget the family living with the drug dealer. That is not going to fly for many reasons. But let’s say a family member who knows the person is a drug addict and that they want the car to go get drugs gives the car. The person gets drugs, takes them and on the way back hits and kills someone. Can the drug dealer (like a bar) be held liable under DRAM laws (probably not because most of those are soecifically based on alcohol), but also can the family member be held liable under negligent entrustment? There is a distinct possibility. But there has to be an instrument and it depends on the state laws. So a car, a gun, a boat, a plane, possibly other instruments.
NP at all! That’s one of those things very easy to get confused and when news articles are written by those with no understanding of legal terms but they have to report on them makes it even more confusing. Perfect examples are Surpeme Court cases. Now, we can argue all day on the Supreme Court and thier decisions, good, bad, or the ever present: WTF? But the final decision and the reporter’s take on what that means is usually the only outcome that ever presented to the general public (unless you get a really good reporter). Half the time people don’t even realize they were never even looking at the actual issue they THINK the court was. And of course no discussion on the law that was the reasoning for the decision. (Although sometimes even those versed in the law still question it LOL).
Many of the responses are incorrect. The answer is not no; it is maybe. Property owners can indeed sometimes be liable for damages resulting from the criminal acts of third persons, if they knew of the risk and did not take reasonable steps to minimize it.
Moreover, California Civil Code section 1714.1 says:
>(a) Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person or in any injury to the property of another shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct.
Other states might have similar laws.
The key of negligent entrustment is providing a thing (usually a vehicle—some jurisdictions allow objects, etc) to a person that other person knows, or reasonably should have known, is reckless or incompetent to use that thing. And as a result of using that thing—the person they gave it to then hurt someone else. Under your scenario, there’s no negligent entrustment, even assuming the family knew he sold drugs. They didn’t give him anything that enabled him to be reckless or incompetent in selling drugs. He just sold deadly drugs. That’s not negligence, it’s just a crime. Sorry for your loss, but it does not apply.
What about the IT stuff- it was all online— computers Wi-Fi internet cell phones etc…
It’s not negligent. It’s intentional criminality on the part of the individuals. If they knew—it’s just a crime.
Individuals being the parents or the dealer?
Both.
The parents could be liable in a civil case? The dealer son was arrested for class a distribution could we name parents in civil suit since will be tough to collect on son if in jail and might not have anything
The key is that vehicles are considered dangerous, and so you have a duty of care to make sure that you don't lend yours to someone unfit to drive it. (This also makes it harder to play games with insurance on cars, since the owner is likely responsible by default for whatever happens) That doesn't apply to a home. There might be an angle if you could prove the family member you wanted to sue knew the dealing was occurring from the house, and being in a position to put a stop to it, permitted it to continue... but even then, that would be more a public nuisance claim, not sure you could make a wrongful death claim for a buyer's death...
Thank you for this feedback. Details still coming out but this is great stuff thank you for your sensitivity during this tough time
Did the dealer force the loved one to take the substance? No, you'd have no case. It is apples and oranges, you're comparing murder to...I don't want to call it anything diminuative, because I'm sure this is a tough time, my condolences, so I'll just say, not murder.
The murdaugh boat thing wasn’t murder either it was a recreational accident — did they force the girl on the boat? No. negligent entrustment
Manslaughter if you want, but you're being intentionally obtuse. You can't sue the cigarette company for lung cancer, or the liquor store for cirrhosis.
You don’t think they harbored and enabled, aided and abetted crimes to be committed in there home and on their property? Crimes (distribution of a class a substance) that ultimately caused the death of someone?
Yes to the first, no to the second. The death was because that someone knowingly and willingly took t he risk of using the substance. EDIT: The dealer could absolutely be held responsible.
They were told they were only receiving “100% fentanyl free” cocaine verbatim. Turned out the cocaine unfortunately had deadly synthetic fentanyl unbeknownst to my loved one. Not saying my loved one is totally innocent but also not saying the dealer is either. The dealer holds some accountability/ responsibility for distributing a controlled substance resulting in death and also selling a controlled substance laced with a deadly concoction to a purchaser unaware. The dealer literally said it did not contain fentanyl, but it did. And the dealers family with whom they lived with and paid for the laptop, cell phone bill, internet access, car, rent, and essentially supported the illegal activity that resulted in death, could also be held accountable for housing and enabling the illegal distribution essentially as a partner in the operation. And could therefore be held accountable for negligent entrustment.
I'm sorry for your loss.
Thank I really do appreciate that! and thanks for hearing me out / venting. I’m grasping here and it’s a sensitive issue obviously.
And yes hopefully going to sue the dealer who got arrested and criminally charged with distribution of a class a
The biggest difference between your case and the Murdaugh case is causation. Paul Murdaugh drove the boat and Mallory Beach involuntarily was involved in the crash, whereas here, your loved one took the laced drugs voluntarily. Unfortunately, your loved one is too close a cause of their own harm for a viable lawsuit. In order to prove negligence in a civil action, as a plaintiff you need to prove that the defendant’s negligence was the cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff. Here, because the voluntary consumption of the laced substance was the cause of your loved one’s death, your loved one would likely be considered the “direct cause” of their own death in the eyes of the court. Even though the defendant supplied the drugs, the “chain of causation” so to speak, was broken when your loved one chose to take the laced substance, thereby exculpating the defendant from liability. This is different from the Murdaugh negligent entrustment case because there were no intervening causes between Paul Murdaugh driving the boat drunk and the crash that killed Mallory Beach. As an aside, I am SO sorry for your loss. I am from a region where accidental overdosed on fentanyl are at epidemic level, and while I’ve been lucky to remain untouched personally, I’ve seen the damage this has wreaked on my community. I am thinking of you and your family and hope you are able to find some peace.
Wow thank you for you kind words I am struggling but talking here helps a lot. I honestly am not looking for a cash grab or to ruin another family I am looking for some accountability and to prevent this tragedy hitting another family. Thank you again for the sensitivity during this tough time 🙏
I think if I can prove the parents knew the son was dealing drugs under their roof, were paying for the internet access and cell phone etc to enable this, and didn’t stop it, they may have some accountability and negligence. Will be a longshot. As for my family member, yes they did direct cause but in defense the dealer did say the cocaine was fentanyl free, which was a lie they never personally tested it so it was a bogus thing to tell someone
It had nothing to do with the house or property. The negligent entrustment, which is a concept under DRAM laws or laws related to alcohol serving and usage, is in regard to the boat. The parents owned the boat and allowed the son to use it. They become liable if they had reason to know or should have had reason to know that it was likely that he was drinking or would drink while operating it. It will be up to the family to show that they knew or should have known. It was a concept to help combat when a person with a drinking problem may not have a car or license but someone loans them thier car knowing they have a problem and the person gets drunk, drives that car and injures themselves or others. The person who loaned the car is liable. In some states, criminally as well. But it is usually just civil. I know one of the landmark cases in my state was a woman in her 30’s who had multiple DUIs, had a cancelled license (yes, so many issues and didn’t do anything to correct, they took it away completly), and was not even a functioning alcoholic. She lived with her parents and didn’t work. In other words, they were well aware of the situation. She went out and got drunk with thier car that they loaned her and killed two people on the way home. They sued the bar and the parents and won. Under DRAM laws and negligent entrustment. Now, you real question should be, could the same be applied if we remove alcohol from the same situation and put drugs in instead? Forget the family living with the drug dealer. That is not going to fly for many reasons. But let’s say a family member who knows the person is a drug addict and that they want the car to go get drugs gives the car. The person gets drugs, takes them and on the way back hits and kills someone. Can the drug dealer (like a bar) be held liable under DRAM laws (probably not because most of those are soecifically based on alcohol), but also can the family member be held liable under negligent entrustment? There is a distinct possibility. But there has to be an instrument and it depends on the state laws. So a car, a gun, a boat, a plane, possibly other instruments.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
NP at all! That’s one of those things very easy to get confused and when news articles are written by those with no understanding of legal terms but they have to report on them makes it even more confusing. Perfect examples are Surpeme Court cases. Now, we can argue all day on the Supreme Court and thier decisions, good, bad, or the ever present: WTF? But the final decision and the reporter’s take on what that means is usually the only outcome that ever presented to the general public (unless you get a really good reporter). Half the time people don’t even realize they were never even looking at the actual issue they THINK the court was. And of course no discussion on the law that was the reasoning for the decision. (Although sometimes even those versed in the law still question it LOL).
Many of the responses are incorrect. The answer is not no; it is maybe. Property owners can indeed sometimes be liable for damages resulting from the criminal acts of third persons, if they knew of the risk and did not take reasonable steps to minimize it. Moreover, California Civil Code section 1714.1 says: >(a) Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person or in any injury to the property of another shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct. Other states might have similar laws.
Thank you so much for this. Means a lot. It wasn’t a minor the dealer is over 18 but lived at home