Virginia – eNotes: Liability – April 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Dodson v. Estate of Kleffman
Virginia Court of Appeals
No. 0518-24-4

Decided: March 18, 2025

An individual who voluntarily and knowingly assumes the duty of supervising a student driver can be negligent for failing to supervise the young driver in a reasonably prudent manner.

Background

A 15 year-old student driving his parents’ Ford F-150, pursuant to a valid learner’s permit and in the company of his mother and stepfather, ran a stop sign and collided with a vehicle which was traveling through the intersection. The driver of the other vehicle was killed. The administrators of her estate sued the student’s mother and stepfather for negligence, and for negligent entrustment of their vehicle to the student.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the student’s mother was in the front seat of the F-150, and that she intended to supervise the student’s driving at the time of the collision. Plaintiff claimed that neither the mother nor the stepfather, who rode in the back seat, advised the student driver to decelerate or otherwise avoid the collision. The Amended Complaint further alleged that the student driver’s inexperience rendered him unfit, and that the mother and stepfather were therefore liable for negligently entrusting their vehicle to him. The mother and stepfather filed a demurrer, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for common law negligence or for negligent entrustment. They claimed that the amended complaint failed to establish that they possessed a legal duty to the Plaintiff and argued that there was no possible cause of action that held them liable for failing to properly supervise the student driver. The Circuit Court denied the demurrer, and the mother and stepfather filed a Motion for an interlocutory appeal.

Holding

The Court of Appeals rejected the parents’ contention that they had no duty to protect the decedent. The Court reiterated the common law principle of assumption of duty, stating that if the mother intended to supervise the student driver, she assumed an actionable duty of care. The Court similarly refused to agree that Plaintiff lacked any possible cause of action for a parent’s abdication of the duty to supervise a student operating a vehicle pursuant to a learner’s permit. “Extending this logic would mean that an accompanying driver could, with impunity, curl up for a catnap in the front seat and tell the student driver to take the downtown expressway to I-95 and wake up the instructor when they reach the county line liquor store. We find such an outcome to be ill-advised.”

While conceding that an individual who undertakes the duty to supervise an inexperienced operator driving under a learner’s permit could face liability for negligent supervision, the Court explained “that does not mean that any (or every) adult in a car driven by a student driver is responsible for the child’s driving.” It also rejected Plaintiff’s “suggestion that [the mother] somehow had a duty to prevent the accident and that she is naturally accountable for any errors made by her son.” The Court held, “the accompanying driver is not an insurer against any possible accident, nor is she a mind-reader who can anticipate a split-second error by the student . . . , nor is she required to give a running commentary of advice throughout a properly executed journey.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision to overrule the demurrer as to the negligence claim against the mother because the Amended Complaint affirmatively asserted that the mother intended to supervise the student, the student relied upon her supervision, and the mother then failed to properly supervise the inexperienced driver. However, since the Amended Complaint failed to allege that the stepfather assumed any duty, the Court of Appeals held that no proper claim for negligence existed against the stepfather, and that the circuit court erred in overruling the stepfather’s demurrer. The Court of Appeals rejected the contention that mere inexperience constitutes the unfitness necessary to establish a valid claim for negligent entrustment. “Indeed, if every time an inexperienced person drove a vehicle equated to negligent entrustment, newly-permitted drivers would never learn how to driver properly.” The Court held that because the Plaintiff failed to allege that (a) the student driver was mentally or physically impaired; (b) the student was under the influence of mind-altering substances; or (c) the student’s learning permit was restricted, suspended, or revoked, they had failed to state a claim for negligent entrustment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals determined the lower court erred in overruling the demurrer as to negligent entrustment.

Questions about this case can be directed to Cynthia King at (804) 566-3571 or cking@tthlaw.com.