That’s now the law in Kansas. It’s called a first-party negligent entrustment claim.

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that a known drunk driver and repeat DUI offender can sue the man whose car he borrowed, after he crashed that car and suffered severe injuries.

The high court reversed a district court decision that dismissed just such a lawsuit.

Travis Driscoll was the plaintiff in a lawsuit stemming from an accident in Jefferson County, Kansas in November, 2008. Court documents show he failed to yield the right of way attempting to turn onto a highway. He was seriously hurt in the crash.

In a court filing, he asserted that the man who let him use the car, Leroy Driscoll, knew he was incapable of driving the vehicle safely. He filed suit, claiming the owners of the vehicle owed him a duty not to let him use it.

He also sued the other motorist in the crash, but that lawsuit was dismissed.

Driscoll alleged that the owner permitted him to use the car despite being aware that Driscoll’s driver’s license was suspended, he had a past history of alcohol abuse and drank alcohol on a daily or nearly daily basis, he had received multiple DUIs, and he was a known reckless or incompetent person incapable of safely operating the vehicle.

A majority of the Kansas Supreme Court held that Kansas law recognizes Travis Driscoll’s claim, and remanded the case back to the lower court for further action. If the case makes it to trial, a jury would likely have to weigh the comparative fault of the two parties, the well-intentioned owner of the car, and the motorist who crashed it.

In his dissent, Justice Lee A. Johnson labeled the majority’s reasoning “circular absurdity.”

“I believe that adults have to accept sole responsibility for their own poor choices or careless conduct,” Johnson wrote.

“The fact that an adult is known to have frequently exercised bad judgment in the past should not create a duty in every other adult in the universe to protect that careless person from himself or herself.”

“I decline to join with the majority in being an enabler for persons who blame others for their own shortcomings. By expanding the law of negligent entrustment, the majority provides the mechanism to guarantee that no good deed shall go unpunished and that no imprudent act shall go unrewarded.”

You can read the entire ruling here.