Jon J. Carlston

Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Jon Carlston (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) prevailed on summary judgment for a client car-sharing platform in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. Through our client, a non-party vehicle owner agreed to share his vehicle with a co-defendant who let the defendant driver operate the vehicle, which later stuck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Colt and Jon argued that our client could not entrust a vehicle it, as a car-sharing program, did not control. Colt and Jon also argued that the law of negligent entrustment was not strict liability and did not extend to successive entrustments to unauthorized drivers. When the plaintiff argued Nevada’s car rental statutes required our client to insure the vehicle as to all operators, Jon pointed the court to Nevada’s new car-sharing statutes that except car-sharing programs from that rule. The court agreed and entered summary judgment in favor of our client, sparing them from burdensome discovery and substantial exposure for the plaintiff’s personal injuries.

Colt B. Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Jon Carlston (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) prevailed on a motion to dismiss in Nevada state court in a negligent entrustment action against Wilson Elser’s clients, a peer-to-peer car-sharing program and the shared vehicle’s owners. The plaintiff’s luxury tour bus suffered extensive property damage after a hit-and-run accident with the shared vehicle. Although it was unclear whether an authorized driver or car thief was behind the wheel, Colt and Jon argued that common law does not recognize successive entrustments. In an issue of first impression, Colt successfully navigated Nevada’s recently enacted car-sharing statutes to convince the court that the clients need not investigate whether a license displayed by the authorized driver was valid. Colt also convinced the court that the client’s insurance required by the new statutes was not the plaintiff’s ticket to impose vicarious liability. Colt also argued that joint and several liability under the old car rental statutes took a backseat to the new peer-to-peer car-sharing statutes. In addition, Colt argued that amending the complaint and allowing discovery would be futile. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against the client. This decision saved the client from significant exposure, burdensome discovery, and substantial costs and legal fees.