Connection lost
Server error
HAYS v. ROYER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer entrusted a company van to an employee with a known drinking problem. The employee died in a drunk driving accident. The court held that the employee’s family could sue the employer for negligent entrustment, despite the employee’s own negligence.
Legal Significance: In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, a negligent entrustment claim can be brought by the entrustee (a “first-party” claim), not just by an injured third party. The entrustee’s own negligence is a matter for apportionment of fault, not a complete bar to recovery.
HAYS v. ROYER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The decedent, Scott Hays, was an employee and part-owner of a funeral services company controlled by the Respondents (“Royer”). The petition alleged that Royer knew Hays was an unsafe driver due to a habitual intoxication problem. Royer was aware of Hays’s past inpatient treatment for alcoholism, his drinking at work, and his practice of driving the company van after consuming alcohol. Royer’s management had held meetings regarding Hays’s drinking. On the day of the accident, Royer entrusted a company van to Hays. Hays drove the van to a bar, became intoxicated, and was killed in a single-vehicle accident while driving home. No third parties were injured. Hays’s wife and minor son brought a wrongful death action against Royer, alleging a theory of negligent entrustment. The trial court granted Royer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding no duty to protect an adult from his own voluntary intoxication.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Missouri law, under a pure comparative fault system, recognize a cause of action for negligent entrustment brought by the entrustee, or his representatives, against the entrustor for injuries sustained by the entrustee himself?
Yes. A cause of action for negligent entrustment may be stated by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does Missouri law, under a pure comparative fault system, recognize a cause of action for negligent entrustment brought by the entrustee, or his representatives, against the entrustor for injuries sustained by the entrustee himself?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the viability of first-party negligent entrustment claims in pure Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercit
Legal Rule
In a jurisdiction applying pure comparative fault, an entrustee may state a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on whether an entrustor owes a duty of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Missouri recognizes a “first-party” negligent entrustment claim, allowing an entrustee to