Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Amador v. Lea's Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc., 916 S.W.2d 845 (1996)

Citation
Amador v. Lea's Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc., 916 S.W.2d 845 (1996)
Parent Document
Amador v. Lea's Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc., 916 S.W.2d 845 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1996-02-01

Other Sections in This Document (115)

Full Text

804 chars
the owner of the automobile had actual knowledge that the driver was under 16 years of age. In the present case, Lea’s Auto had a policy requiring employees to verify that a person who wished to test-drive automobiles was properly licensed. It is apparent that the policy was in place to prevent people who were not properly licensed from driving automobiles owned by Lea’s Auto. It was forseeable that a third person would act in the manner which Robert McFall did in obtaining an automobile although not properly licensed to do so. It was forseeable that allowing an unlicensed driver to operate an automobile would cause or create a danger to the public, which is precisely what occurred when Lea’s Auto’s employee failed to verify McFall’s operator’s license. Given the particular facts of this case,