The Restatement (Second) of Torts (often used for defining legal standards) sets forth a definition for negligent entrustment: "One who supplies directly or through a third person an [object] for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperienced, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself or others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them." In simple terms as relating to aviation, if you provide an airplane to be used by someone who you know, or should know, is not qualified to use that airplane, you will be held responsible.
   A story I often use to explain negligent entrustment involves a case I had a few years ago. I represented the parents of a girl tragically killed in a car accident. She was a passenger in a car that flew off a mountain road at over 100 mph. Neither the car nor its victims were found for three days! The driver of the car was an adult video star. The car she was speeding in belonged not to her, but rather her adult video producer boyfriend. The driver had no insurance, and the car was not insured. However, the boyfriend owner did have the car self-insured for minimum legal liability limits of $15,000 per person.
   My clients' daughter did nothing wrong, other than get in the car with her negligent friend. The parents deserved to be compensated for the death of their only daughter. But how? Under California law the owner of a car is only liable for $15,000 in damages for the permissive use of his car. The producer would gladly have paid that. The porn star driver had no property to speak of, so suing her Estate would have been meaningless. The only hope of achieving substantial and appropriate damages for the parents of the passenger would be through a claim of negligent entrustment against the producer boyfriend. But to prevail, we would have to prove he had knowledge of his girlfriend's negligent driving habits, and nonetheless lent her the car.
   As good fortune would have it, the boyfriend proved our case against him all by himself. There is a magazine devoted to adult videos (hopefully you are all too engrossed in reading this fine journal to have time to peruse that of which I now discuss), and the boyfriend producer had penned a eulogy to his adult video star girlfriend therein. I came across a copy of this fine magazine, not due to any subscription, I assure you, but by way of a friend of my clients' daughter. The boyfriend wrote how sorry he was for providing the car to his now dead girlfriend, having known she drove fast in the past, and having admonished her for so doing. Thus, we had established negligent entrustment by the defendant's own words! After serving him with the lawsuit, he met with me, and much to his credit, assumed financial responsibility and settled the case for a very reasonable amount of money. I only wish insurance companies similarly assumed legal and moral responsibility.
   Now, without further ado, we get to a case that pertains to airplanes, something we are all familiar with. The recent case of White v Inbound Aviation, et al, a California Court of Appeal opinion, hits the issue of negligent entrustment right on the head. Tragically, it involves yet another crash at South Lake Tahoe's high elevation, surrounded by mountains airport. There have been several small plane crashes at this airport, some of which I have personally been involved with. Like the battery bunny in t.v. commercials, high density altitude crashes keep happening and happening and happening.
   Inbound Aviation had a policy, as do most rental companies, to have pilots checked out before they can lease an aircraft. An Inbound employee, Marconet, owned a Piper Archer used for rental purposes. Low time pilot Meier was checked out in the Archer by Inbound instructor Rosselott. Despite Rosselott noting that Meier was a "brand new pilot" with total time of 75 hours, and not having flown for 18 months since receiving his license, and that he "showed a low level of skill", Rosselott signed Meier off in the Archer. Inbound also had a policy to require a high altitude checkout before its aircraft could be used for flights into airports with elevations over 4000 feet. The high altitude checkout took four to five hours, and included "actual hands-on experience" in high altitude conditions. However, Inbound did not have a policy which required employees to verify a high altitude checkout.
   On July 2, 1994, Meier rented the Archer for a flight into the South Lake Tahoe Airport. Instructor Rosselott knew of the planned flight, and knew that he had not given Meier the required high altitude checkout, yet nonetheless did nothing to stop the flight. Rosselott claimed that since he knew Meier knew of the requirement for a high altitude checkout, Meier must have undergone the checkout with someone else. Rosselott did nothing to verify this fact. Nor did the Inbound employee who owned the Archer, Marconet, who handed the keys over to Meier. Needless to say, as Meier was taking-off from the South Lake Tahoe Airport (field elevation 6,264') on a hot summer day, the Archer crashed, killing Meier and his two hapless passengers.
   This appellate court opinion pertains to the lawsuit brought by the parents of one of the passengers. The trial included experts on behalf of the plaintiffs who claimed Inbound and its employees were negligent for entrusting the Archer to Meier without his having undergone the high altitude checkout. The defense argued through its experts that Meier would have been taught about high altitude takeoffs when he trained for his license, and he was issued the license by the FAA. Thus, the defense claimed, Inbound and its employees did nothing wrong. The jury agreed with the plaintiffs and found: "(1) Meier had been negligent, (2) his negligence had caused [the passenger's] death, (3) Inbound had permitted Meier to use the aircraft when it knew or should have known that he was 'not competent' to operate the aircraft,(4) Meier's incompetence caused had caused the accident, (5) 50 percent of the negligence that had caused [the passenger's] death was attributable to Inbound and the other 50 percent was attributable to Meier."
   Over and over again we have preached upon us - "NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING." There is little room for assumptions of fact without foundation in aviation. Are we to assume that an aircraft has oil in the engine, without checking the dipstick? Do we assume fuel placed into our tanks is the proper fuel, merely because a line boy says it is? Do we assume the frequency tuned in on the ILS is proper, without verifying the morse code i.d.? Should we assume that an aircraft is within CG and weight limitations by looking at the bodies to be carried onboard, or do we perform a calculation? Do we assume the weather at our destination is good, solely based upon sky conditions at the place of departure? Obviously, sound piloting requires placing assumptions aside in favor of verification. The same goes for entrustment of aircraft. Instructors and companies that rent aircraft must make certain the aircraft and lives they are entrusting are in good hands. It is not enough to assume the pilot is qualified, without appropriate confirmation. To do so exposes one to serious legal and moral liability.