Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


MARK HADDAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v GEORGE TSOUKALAS, Defendant-Appellee, and ALEXANDER HARLAMBOS SAKELLARIS and ALEXANDRA SAKELLARIS, Defendants.

UNPUBLISHED January 12, 2006

No. 256659 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 02-243629-NO

Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Borrello and Davis, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the February 10, 2004, order dismissing his cause of action against defendant, George Tsoukalas. Specifically, plaintiff challenges the grant of summary disposition on his claim of negligent entrustment. Because plaintiff has plead and created a justiciable question of fact on his theory of defendant's negligent entrustment of his registered Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum revolver to Alexander Sakellaris, we reverse and remand to the trial court.1 During the evening of January 11, 2002, plaintiff and friends visited with Sakellaris in the basement of his home. After a short while, Sakellaris produced the revolver to, "handle it and show it off." He opened the chamber, removed one of the bullets and announced that it was a hollow point, replaced the bullet, and then spun the cylinder "like a toy." The gun did not have a trigger lock in place. As Sakellaris ascended the basement stairs with the gun in his left hand he tripped, fell, and dislodged the banister, all of which resulted in an accidental discharge of the firearm. Plaintiff was shot in the knee.

1

Plaintiff's claims against the other named defendants were dismissed without prejudice.

-1-


The revolver was registered to defendant. Sakellaris reported to the police that he was keeping the handgun for his defendant cousin whose parents would not permit him to maintain the gun in their home. When the police investigated, they found the handgun in the trunk of Sakellaris' vehicle in a case, unloaded, and secured with a trigger lock. When defendant was interviewed by the police he reported he had purchased the handgun along with a holster. Police questioned defendant further when they noted the holster purchased for use with the handgun was for a left-handed individual and defendant is right-handed and Sakellaris is left-handed. When questioned regarding this observation, defendant acknowledged that he and Sakellaris had gone to purchase the handgun and that it was Sakellaris who provided the monies for the purchase. Defendant stated that it was their intent, at some point in the future, to turn ownership of the handgun over to Sakellaris. When Sakellaris was reinterviewed he acknowledged that he had accompanied defendant to purchase the gun and that he had requested defendant purchase the handgun, with the intent that when Sakellaris turned eighteen, the gun would be transferred and registered in his name. Sakellaris reported that defendant purchased the gun for him, but that defendant registered the handgun in his own name and took it home. Defendant's father discovered a bullet for the handgun in their home and instructed defendant to remove the gun from the home. Defendant took it with a trigger lock in place to Sakellaris to retain. Defendant reported to police that he did not give Sakellaris any ammunition with the handgun. Sakellaris and defendant took the gun to a shooting range on two or three occasions. After shooting, Sakellaris would clean the gun and replace the trigger lock. Defendant asserted that he permitted Sakellaris to store the handgun based on his "superior knowledge" of weapons and his experience with guns. Prior to this incident, Sakellaris was reported to have had several contacts with police as a juvenile, including incurring speeding tickets, breaking and entering and probation violations. Defendant contended that he was unaware of any criminal history or police involvement with Sakellaris before this event. Below, plaintiff contended defendant's assertion that Sakellaris had been trained and was knowledgeable in the use of firearms was uncorroborated. Plaintiff also asserted Sakellaris' history of juvenile problems, at school and with police, verified his immaturity and his incompetence to possess a handgun. Further, that Sakellaris' possession of the handgun was illegal due to his age, and that the handgun could not have been legally transferred from defendant to Sakellaris until he turned eighteen. The handgun purchase was described as an illegal "strawman" purchase, involving the legitimate purchase of the handgun by defendant with the illegal transfer of the weapon to Sakellaris, without proper registration or transfer paperwork. On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on his claim of negligent entrustment. The tort of negligent entrustment is comprised of two elements: First, the entrustor is negligent in entrusting the instrumentality to the entrustee. Second, the entrustee must negligently or recklessly misuse the instrumentality. [Allstate Ins Co v Freeman, 160 Mich App 349, 357; 408 NW2d 153 (1987).]

-2-


The doctrine of negligent entrustment essentially comprises a determination of whether an individual's conduct was reasonable in view of the apparent risk involved. Bragan v Symanzik, 263 Mich App 324, 341; 687 NW2d 881 (2004) (Murphy, J., concurring.) Originally, this Court, in Muscat v Khalil, 150 Mich App 114, 121; 388 NW2d 267 (1986), discussed the law of negligent entrustment, indicating: Michigan courts have adopted the following definition of the theory from 2 Restatement Torts, 2d,

Download MARK HADDAD V GEORGE TSOUKLAS.pdf

Michigan Law