Negligent entrustment is the principle that makes car, truck or motorcycle owners liable when they allow an incompetent, reckless, or inexperienced driver to operate their vehicle. If the driver causes an accident, the victim can sue the owner for damages.
Note that relinquishing a motor vehicle to a minor who is not safe or legally entitled to drive can also be charged as a crime under California Penal Code 193.8(a).
To help you better understand negligent entrustment law, our California personal injury lawyers discuss:
A car owner who let unlicensed drivers have use of the vehicle face liability for the driver’s negligence.
1. The Elements
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 724 spells out the elements of negligent entrustment. If you were injured in a car accident, you can win a negligent entrustment claim by proving the following five elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
- The driver (entrustee) was negligent in operating the vehicle;
- The defendant (entrustor) owned the vehicle or possessed it with the owner’s permission;
- The defendant had actual knowledge, or should have known, that the motorist was an incompetent driver or unfit to drive the vehicle;
- The defendant permitted the driver to drive the vehicle; and
- The driver’s incompetence, inexperience, or unfitness to drive was a substantial factor in causing you harm.1
2. Examples
If a driver causes an accident, the vehicle’s owner could be liable to you for negligent entrustment if the owner knew – or should have known – that the driver either:
- was drunk or stoned;
- was underage;
- did not have a current and valid driver’s license;
- had a suspended or revoked license;
- had a medical condition (such as vision problems) that makes it a danger to drive; or
- had a recent conviction for drunk driving or reckless driving
Therefore, it makes no difference if the owner was nowhere near the accident scene. As long as they authorized the driver to take the wheel – and that driver was unfit to do so – the owner is liable to you under negligent entrustment.2
3. Defenses
Four potential defenses to civil liability for a negligent entrustment claim include (but are not limited to):
- The car owner did not know – and was not on notice – that the driver was unfit to drive.
- The driver did not cause the auto accident.
- Your injuries were not caused by the driver.
- The defendant’s entrustment of the vehicle to the driver was consistent with what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances.3
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:
- Negligent Entrustment of Automobiles – Houston Law Review.
- Negligent Entrustment: Evaluation of a Frequently Overlooked Source of Additional Liability – Arkansas Law Review.
- Negligent Hiring and Negligent Entrustment: The Case against Exclusion – Oregon Law Review.
- Liability for Negligent Entrustment of a Motor Vehicle – South Texas Law Journal.
- Torts: Does the Negligent Entrustment Doctrine Apply to Sellers – University of Florida Law Review.
Legal References:
- California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 724. Allen v. Toledo (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 415; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abdullah (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 81. California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) 400. See also California Civil Code section 1714(a) (“Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself…”). See also: Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148; Grafton v. Mollica (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 860; Dodge Center v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 332; Ghezavat v. Harris (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 555; Blake v. Moore (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 700; Perez v. G & W Chevrolet, Inc. (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 766; Syah v. Johnson (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 534; Mettelka v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1245.
- California Vehicle Code 14606. California Vehicle Code 14607. California Vehicle Code 14608. See also Flores v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1055; Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 703.
- See, for example: Richards v. Stanley (California Supreme Court, 1954) 43 Cal.2d 60; Nault v. Smith (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 257.