Speaker 1: ___________________________________________________would be liable to a certain pardon to the injuries caused by _____ miner.

But when you think about it this case despite its introduction ___ the new _____ entrustment is a similar structure. In other words, you have an individual. The primary one here is the ____ but we have 3 defendants that provides something, in this case its not alcohol to someone who then goes on and injures a certain party. So we still have our third party ____ suing , in this case 3 defendants for a harm caused to this person by another ____ and could be another defendant, the actual actor and in this case is this nephew or great nephew. Given his parent problems with drugs or alcohol or both is involved in a car accident. And so that's exactly the ______. In Reynolds however there is this dimension of that analysis that dominated the "333" split which is how to deal with and respond to the legislative enactment of one __ or the other. A ____________ __ ___ ___ __ oppose duties on commercial vendors and criminal legislation that said it was a violation of the law to provide alcohol for minors. Here we don't have such a statue but we have _____ ______. We have this thing called "The __ of Negligence entrustment" and so that's the second structural comparison. The first is this ___ party triangular thing, but the other thing is this contextual ___. In Reynolds it was statutory ____. Here's the common law of Negligence entrustment. And it strives me that the exact same challenge is present. What was in the Reynolds whether to extend ___, whether its ____ interpretation of the criminals statue for a feminine serving minor to an alcohol to a third party. And here is whether or not to extend, not the third party feature, but to extend what ________________________________. So what is the extension or ____ extension challenge that this __ is facing?. It always dealt with things that were dangerous. The question is, what do we mean by entrustment. So your quite right by putting those 2 ___ together. The classic entrustment case when someone have, something that potentially could be dangerous if placing the hands of someone who should have it. And they give their ______ to them. So, you want to use my card?" ____ drive carefully. I know you're a minor, you don't have a license, ______________________________________________, but you can use my card" or something like that or, "You seem a little jumpy _+_ you want to kill someone?, why don't you use my gun, but don't use it against ___. Use it to protect yourself and you give the gun. Something you posses is then provided to another. You entrust it to them and its considered a negligent entrustment because you shouldn't. It was unreasonable to do so. And I trust you know enough about the way the law evolves. The earliest entrustment cases were where the individual that was entrusted with a thing ___ themselves with it. Then again to the party crashing to a tree. It's like the first _____ case. Where the minor is injured after being served alcohol and sues the person that provided the alcohol. Of course it's a ____ you have a duty to the minor that ___ say you shouldn't do that, it's a crime. So the next case and this is not the case that's already incurred in the law. It's been launched standing is a ______ that entrusted the dangerous thing unreasonably and you're the third party. And the negligence entrustment theory allows the third as _____ its shows to sue the entrustors. All of that are not new, what's new here is the end or the _____ people are not entrusting a vehicle to this person.

What are they doing? ______________________________ I think the third defendant in the courts discussion is the end and the other 2, they ended giving money. And the other 2 are selling the car. So the question becomes, does the negligent entrustment ___ shouldn't extend to what might you want to call sales. And then, there's note and even within the case for some discussion shouldn't extend to loans, shouldn't extend to leases, Valors and Valies. So again , it's the same kind of. It's a different circumstance, grounded in different whether precedence, not statues but ______________theory entrustment, but the same sort of duty line drawing exercise takes place and this is in that policy unit, and we have sort of 2 major operating ideas. One is crushing liability, And even when there's not crushing liability. Some concern is what I think __________________________________________. Trying to maintain some limit between the negligence and potential risk and why not only out of fearness in that context, but also use your language or metaphor that works ____ slow. Think of all the _____ that now could sue this defendant and so forth. SO those are sort of the policy ideas that operate to either limit or extend ____-works in the circumstances. Now with that said, the details that are redundant to what we covered in Reynolds, but let's go through them. I think similar _____ a lot new except its new context. At trial there's a directive verdict for the first 2 defendants. So these folks, its judgment for them, they get the cases against them dismissed. The court says "there's no duty" by a dealership or the sales person have that dealership to take certain precautions that the sale ____. That's why the note says. One ___ asks "can you sell a car to a person that doesn't have a drivers license". And the answer pretty much everywhere is you cannot. But what you imagine is the basic reason. If you're purchasing cars, they want to see your driver's license TALKING BACKGROUND 9:01 The word accomplice and the _______suggest or maybe some statutes, They are operating on the sale of a vehicle. Maybe in major____________ imposing upon commercial sellers of vehicles don't always sell to people that have drivers license. So there maybe again a statutory backdrop, which isn't true in this case, but is true as we now know in the Reynolds case thatAlcohol providing case, not a sale there but just providing alcohol in a social event. So there maybe a statutory requirements to ___. But here, do we know if this person does or does not have a drivers license. I don't think you did. Who bought the card? Who got the title___ I think the young person. So way back in ____ maybe 9. The question is might there been negligence of the first two defendants just on the theory of _____________________. Now that is what we talk about in the case, but its raised by the note. But it's an interesting thing just to pause on because. Their judgments, let's just focus on that for a moment, these judgments directed verdicts. Those are our first for something that reminds me of ____soft, psychologist case the __ case. Why is this court reverse and directed verdicts for the ____ people, not for the ___ ___ nice. Why is it reversal. Talking background

Well, but why? I mean did ___ on questions of fact. This is a duty case. The courtthe trial judge obviously thought that the defendants had no duty. And the argument ___ was making was entrustment theories. This is not an entrustment case, at least as to them. Since the trial judge does send it to the jury. As to the aunt then the jury would turn to a verdict for the __. _______ correctly against the aunt or the defendant, this third defendant may lie ___ by the jury. And this judgments is affirmed. So our aunt is liable whether the sales people who will be liable will be determined by their names and opinions __________________procedures. So, there will be a trial or so possibly, as to those other 2 defendants. But before we turn to the aunt which is the most interesting in some ways parts and opinion. Because there's something about the reversal or __ verdict that I think has a limited quality. And that's why they came to ____. Talking background Well if the defendants didn't know, that's fairly stated. If the defendants ___________did know certain things, then they may have a duty to take certain precautions. I take that if they didn't know certain things, then they have no duty. Now there's a __ maybe as to whether they knew certain things. Now that's a jury question, did they or didn't they. Did they know this young person had this difficulties. And while they ___ about that. But if they did know, then they have a duty says this case. I think that's why they reversed or _______soft. There were 2 things about the ___ that I think we stressed. There were 2 things that were known, dangerousness and identity of the victim. Because they knew certain things. Now we also know. If we go all the way back to ___ ____ the ___ case ___ ripping of the vote that knowledge alone is not enough, unless you think if these things in general duty terms. Then if you have certain knowledge maybe, you should act. And this is ___ in the contact of some general duty back through __________all this entrustment, just like in the Reynolds case, there's a back __ responsibility given the criminal statute of ____ providing alcohol. That's why I think, it maybe a narrow decision as to the sales people. Do all sales people __ this decision in Vermont. If you're a council or a lawyer in ___ or Britain____ dealership. Do we now need to ask questions based in this ruling, like "what's your driving record", "do you have an alcohol problem". Could there be cases I think I've mentioned before, I believe has a narrow ruling and there's something to these first 2 defendants that __ know. If they do these, they didn't know because they asked, because apparently _____. ________________________i don't know but, I think that would narrow the- If I was _______________________________the council for the dealership would say "No-no". This decision says if you do come to know something, you may have to act on it. But it does have obliged you to ask. Unless you find the language which we did find in ____. Neither the __ of __ but in the holding of ___. That is a psychologist knew or should have known, then there's a duty. And then the question whether they fulfilled the duty by warning polices _____ to the victim, that's a jury question. I don't think _____should have know this. They knew certain things ____ have a duty. IF they didn't know those things, then there is no duty. Duty for what? To acquire that knowledge. And that's why it all ____ unless you have some counter examples anywhere to my knowledge ___ dealerships, car dealerships ask you for your medical records, your health records, your driving records or anything ___ that. There's even a note that says, "well people should lease car that ___ or pick your other favorite ___ of vehicles. Do they have a duty to investigate the ____ of note for And I think that decision ___ in California says, there's no duty to know, there's no duty to investigate.

But if there is knowledge, then maybe we come out differently. This is actually that of point to try to tie things together, that's what I'm trying to do as we exit ___ unit. That is very similar to the notes following the last case Reynolds. The ones that say maybe there's no general duty of a social host. For a social host to take out of precautions against people gathering at the social. In part because, it was _______ hard to know. They're not ___ commercial vendors and that is ___ to know if someone's intoxicated to that ___________train folks or people who are monitoring this thing and then the notes says, well what about the small ______. Will you do know, and then I created ______________hypothetical, _____helping your drunk guest into their car, seatbelt and turn their car on, point it and go. Now you know a lot. And you think the social host ___excuse that person, maybe not. Talking in background ________________that is I think, that you do ___________and the bottom of why ____ 3. This is given in the discussion of what should we do, should we limit the duty and not allowed to extend to sales or should we extend it and____ discuss that, your right to point out in the big block of which is what I see coming out of this case. And then ____ statement. There is the ____or should have known. So they're saying those jurisdictions that are extended and moved the entrustment issue beyond its limit to actual transferring loaning some _____, but actually selling something. There's language that talks about should have as well as should. And then if you turn the page, _____ restatement provision on the top of 1 and 4 section 390 which has been a section of some consequences. It's a narrow popular ___ , but it had some influence. ____ directly ___ through a 3rd person or a 3rd persons ___ for the use of another. Supply your knows or have reason to know. Now has reason to know is a little different than should have known, a little different, there's some legal room there. But then, few more lines _________physical harm to himself and others 3rd party. So 390 is clearly expansive argument. And this course as we find this persuasive. And then to finally embrace your point which is the ____ __. When they find the ___ to go in that direction, they say the key factor is entrustment when the person knows or should have known which is not a restatement language. Now that know or should have known ___ is quite good. That know or should have known as they say is just good old fashion traditional general duty negligence talk. So ignorance is not bliss. But having said all that when I can think about what im trying to do whether or not you would read this case to require individuals, the sales people to inquire, to investigate. So now the answer will be yes or no and I ____ a moment ago, well I don't think they're going there, given the facts of this case is a ___mean by reason to know or should have known. There's some commentary on this. And this is really getting the ___. But reasons to know has some policy kind of dimension. ____ so you have reason to know these good reasons, some kind of policy reasons. Should have known has something to do with more facts ___ as the phrase you knew is totally fact sensitive. You either knew or didn't know or you should have known. Now my ___ why you should have known something. I think because of this backdrop obligation from the _____ the laws imposing the call of duty. And I could be wrong, this case I don't think turned on this here. Because this individual sales people knew that this was a risk 22:01

SORRU