In a gripping legal battle that underscores the complexities of negligent entrustment and statutory interpretation, an Arizona Court of Appeals decision has vacated part of a lower court’s ruling in a case involving a car dealership and an unauthorized driver. On December 11, 2025, David Kaufman filed an appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals against Pinnacle Nissan, Inc., Nissan North America, Inc., and Christina Guevara. The case revolves around whether Pinnacle Nissan was negligent in allowing Guevara to drive off with a vehicle despite knowing she lacked a valid driver’s license.
The case dates back to March 2020 when Christina Guevara visited Pinnacle Nissan to purchase a car. Despite disclosing her lack of a valid driver’s license due to previous DUI violations, Pinnacle allowed her to take possession of the vehicle after securing a co-signer who also did not possess a valid license. Days later, while driving under the influence, Guevara collided with David Kaufman’s vehicle. Kaufman subsequently sued Pinnacle and Nissan North America for negligent entrustment, arguing that they failed in their duty by not investigating why neither Guevara nor her co-signer had valid licenses.
The superior court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Pinnacle and Nissan, citing no specific Arizona law imposing an affirmative duty on auto dealers to inquire about potential buyers’ lack of licenses. However, upon appeal, Judge Michael J. Brown and his colleagues focused on Arizona Revised Statutes § 28-3475, which prohibits vehicle owners from knowingly allowing unauthorized individuals to drive their vehicles on highways. The appellate court determined that this statute could constitute negligence per se if violated, thereby vacating the summary judgment for Pinnacle but affirming it for Nissan due to insufficient evidence linking them directly as agents responsible for Guevara’s actions.
Kaufman seeks damages from Pinnacle based on their alleged negligence per se violation by entrusting the car to Guevara without ensuring she was authorized to drive legally. The plaintiffs argue that § 28-3475 is designed to protect public safety by preventing unauthorized drivers from operating vehicles on public roads—a stance supported by similar rulings in other jurisdictions where such statutory breaches have been deemed negligence per se.
Represented by attorneys Daniel D. Maynard and Douglas C. Erickson from Maynard Cronin Erickson & Curran P.L.C., Kaufman’s appeal has led to further proceedings being ordered at the superior court level regarding Pinnacle’s liability under this statute. Meanwhile, Darrell E. Davis and Ryan J. Lorenz from Clark Hill PLC defend Pinnacle Nissan while Paul R. Lee and Brandon L. Boxler represent Nissan North America through Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard.
This complex legal narrative unfolds under Case ID No. CV2020-055036 before Honorable Judge Melissa Iyer Julian at Maricopa County Superior Court with appellate oversight provided by Judges Michael J Brown (opinion author), Anni Hill Foster (presiding judge), and Paul J McMurdie—all contributing significantly towards shaping future interpretations surrounding negligent entrustment claims within Arizona’s judicial framework.
Source: 1CACV240518_Kaufman_v_Guevara_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf