Federal Court Dismisses Negligent Entrustment Claim as Speculative and Lacking Factual Support

This case involved a vehicle owned by the co-defendant that allegedly rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff brought action against the co-defendant for one count of negligent entrustment.

In support of their motion to dismiss, the co-defendant argued that the plaintiff’s amended complaint, alleging negligent entrustment, was speculative and failed to contain specific facts to support a plausible claim for relief.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed that the averments made by the plaintiff amounted to unsupported and speculative legal conclusions that failed to advance their negligent entrustment claim. In support of its holding, the court cited substantive state law, noting that in these types of fact-intensive cases, plaintiffs need to offer facts regarding things like the vehicle operator’s driving history, qualifications or training, let alone evidence suggesting negligence or misconduct. Without these types of averments, claims that the defendants knew or should have known the co-defendant driver posed a potential danger to others are merely recitations of the elements of a cause of action and are insufficient, thereby lacking the necessary factual support to sustain a plausible claim of negligent entrustment. The court granted the co-defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s negligent entrustment claim against them.