Negligent entrustment

What is negligent entrustment?

Negligent entrustment is a claim asserting that someone who owned or controlled a vehicle, weapon or other potentially dangerous item improperly allowed another person to use it, knowing or having reason to know that person posed an unreasonable risk.

It applies most commonly where a vehicle owner lends their car to someone known to be an unsafe driver, whether due to inexperience, a suspended license, intoxication or a documented history of reckless driving.

This theory reaches the person who provided access to the dangerous instrumentality, rather than only the person who actually caused the harm while using it.

Understanding this specific theory matters because it can identify an additional, potentially better resourced defendant beyond the person directly responsible for the accident itself.

What must generally be established for this claim?

Several specific elements generally must come together to support this particular theory.

• The defendant owned or controlled the specific item entrusted to another person
• The defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the recipient posed an unreasonable risk
• The defendant nonetheless allowed that person to use the item
• The recipient's use of the item actually caused the claimed injury
• The specific risk that actually materialized was reasonably foreseeable given what the defendant knew

What kinds of situations commonly give rise to this claim?

Lending a vehicle to someone known to lack a valid license, or known to have a suspended or revoked license at the time.

Allowing someone visibly intoxicated, or known to have a substance abuse problem, to drive a vehicle the defendant owned or controlled.

Providing a vehicle to a minor or otherwise inexperienced driver without a valid license, particularly where prior incidents suggested genuine risk.

How is the defendant's actual knowledge established in these cases?

Through evidence of prior incidents involving the specific recipient that the defendant knew about, including previous accidents, citations or documented safety concerns.

Testimony from people familiar with the recipient's driving history or documented substance abuse, which the defendant would reasonably have been aware of given their relationship.

Records establishing the recipient's license status at the time, since a suspended or revoked license the defendant knew about strongly supports this theory.

Common questions

Can I sue the owner of a vehicle even though someone else was actually driving it?

Potentially yes, where the owner knew or reasonably should have known the driver posed an unreasonable risk, and this claim can proceed alongside a claim against the driver directly.

Does the owner have to have known about the driver's specific problem, or is it enough that they should have known?

Either can support this claim. Actual knowledge and constructive knowledge, meaning what a reasonable person in that position should have recognized, both potentially satisfy this element.

Does this theory apply to items other than vehicles?

Yes, it can extend to weapons and other potentially dangerous items, following the same underlying principle regarding known or foreseeable risk in the specific recipient.