Ever had second thoughts about loaning your car to someone, or wondered what kind of liability you could face if they got in an accident? If so, and probably without realizing it, you may have been worrying about the idea of negligent entrustment.
Negligent entrustment is a theory of recovery in tort law (the body of laws most often associated with personal injury cases). A claim for negligent entrustment arises when one party is held liable for negligently giving someone else a “dangerous instrumentality” with which that person causes injury to a third party. Most commonly, the “dangerous instrumentality” takes the form of a motor vehicle, but it could also be any item that is inherently dangerous to use, such as most heavy equipment, guns, explosives, charged electrical lines, etc.
How does it work? In essence, one party is held liable when they allow someone else to use a dangerous instrumentality despite the fact that they either know or should know that the person they are allowing to use the item could be dangerous using it. For example, a parent that allows their child to borrow the car despite knowing that their child is prone to driving dangerously may be held liable of negligent entrustment if the child causes an accident.
In order to succeed on a claim for negligent entrustment, one must show:
1. That the person accused of negligent entrustment gave the dangerous instrumentality (usually a vehicle) to a person he or she knew or should have known would be unsafe with it;
2. That the person to whom the dangerous instrumentality was entrusted was incompetent and unfit to use it;
3. That the defendant had actual reason to know that the person to whom he or she was entrusting the dangerous instrumentality was incompetent, unfit or incapable of safely using it; and
4. That the incompetent user proximately caused an injury to the plaintiff with the dangerous instrumentality.
Negligent entrustment will usually only succeed where one can show a record of bad behavior on the part of the person entrusted with the dangerous instrumentality, such that the owner should have known not to trust that person with it. For example, in the case of an employer whose employee injures someone while driving a company vehicle, the employer may be held liable if the entrustee's driving record was known to the employer or would have been easy to obtain (and it should be as part of an employee's hiring process if they will be driving company vehicles).
Negligent entrustment can have applications in criminal matters, as well. While most crimes require intent, in the case of Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that negligent entrustment of a vehicle to a person with a criminal history was sufficient to support the state's seizure of that vehicle as a penalty for negligently entrusting it to someone who used it in the commission of a crime.
Negligent entrustment is similar to, but different than, vicarious liability. Under a theory of vicarious liability, an employer can be held liable for the torts of an employee under an agency theory regardless of whether the employer had any fault in the injury to the plaintiff. In a negligent entrustment case, however, one must demonstrate that the entruster was actually negligent in entrusting the dangerous instrumentality to the person that caused the plaintiff's injury.
If you believe you may have a claim for negligent entrustment, you should speak with an attorney experienced in personal injury law. Similarly, if you have been accused of negligent entrustment, you should contact your insurance provider (when applicable) and an attorney. These cases can be complicated and require a subtle and nuanced understanding of evidence laws, meaning they are best left to experienced attorneys.
