[alan]

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.

The above is excerpted from S. 659, Section 4 DEFINITIONS, see www.thomas.loc.gov. Both S. 659 and H.R. 1036, already passed in The House, and strongly supported by The National Rifle Association, contain the same wording, wording that seemingly requires the ability to READ MINDS. Interestingly, most people, including legislators I've had contact with lack this ability.

As it stands, inclusion of this wording could well kill the bill, it certainly could seriously limited protections offered to the industry by it, all of which raises questions as to who put the wording in, when and or how this was accomplished, and what the desired end might actually be.

More important however is the following. This wording must be stricken from both versions, and it must be stricken sooner rather than later. Your senators need to hear from you, NOW.

[JimP]

ain't gonna happen. negligent entrustment has been a recognized action in the law for a long time. Example: Giving the keys to your car to a five year old so they can "take a spin"; letting your three year old niece play with a loaded weapon; selling a handgun to a drunken wife ranting about wanting to kill her husband.

You really don't want this language...???? :confused:

[jimpeel]

... the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others. Wouldn't any automobile purchase qualify under this clause? A person must exhibit financial responsibility for damages and injury before the state will register a car for use on the roadways. The state requires, by force of law, that this requirement be satisfied. Insurance is merely a gamble of whether or not you are disposed to the above -- either by intent or by accident.

Forty-two thousand deaths per year -- year after year -- cannot be ignored or wished into the cornfield. There is precedence that this not only can, but will, occur.

If a person is drunk when they buy a car but has a person who actually drives the car off of the lot, with them as a passenger, going to be designated in this limited class of persons who are covered under this act? Will every car dealer be required to deny a sale to anyone they have any suspicion about even if the circumstances -- like that cited above -- indicate otherwise? Will it be the fault of the dealer if, upon exiting the car lot, the sober person pulls over a block away and turns the car over to the drunken passenger?

[alan]

That "or should know" still smacks of being able to read minds to me, but then what do I know.