How To Prove A California Negligent Entrustment Claim

In California, a claim of Negligent Entrustment is defined as:
The entrusting of a dangerous article (as a motor vehicle) to one who is reckless or too inexperienced or incompetent to use it safely also: a theory or doctrine making one liable for injury caused by a party to whom one negligently entrusted something.
It simply means:
Turning over a dangerous object to one who is not mature enough to handle it.
There are 6 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. A driver was negligent operating a vehicle. A driver was careless while using a vehicle, meaning they didn’t pay proper attention or follow safety rules, which led to an accident or harm, and this is a key part of proving that someone else is responsible for letting them drive.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The driver was observed speeding in a residential area, exceeding the posted speed limit by 20 miles per hour.
* The driver failed to stop at a red traffic light, causing a collision with another vehicle.
* The driver was using a mobile phone while operating the vehicle, which distracted them from the road.
* The driver had a history of reckless driving incidents, including multiple traffic violations in the past year.
* The driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, as confirmed by a breathalyzer test. - Element 2. The defendant owned the vehicle operated by the driver or had possession of the vehicle operated by the driver with the owner’s permission. This means that the person being sued either owned the vehicle that the driver was using or had the right to use it, allowing the driver to operate it with their permission.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant purchased the vehicle in question and maintained its registration under their name.
* The driver was a family member of the defendant and had explicit permission to use the vehicle at the time of the incident.
* The defendant regularly allowed the driver to operate the vehicle for personal errands and activities.
* The defendant provided the driver with the keys to the vehicle, indicating consent for its use.
* The vehicle was parked in the defendant’s driveway, demonstrating their possession and control over it. - Element 3. The defendant knew, or should have known, that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle. This means that the person who let someone else use their vehicle was aware, or should have been aware, that the driver was not capable or safe enough to drive, which can make them responsible for any accidents that happen as a result.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had previously observed the driver engaging in reckless driving behavior, including speeding and aggressive lane changes.
* The driver had a history of traffic violations, including multiple DUI charges, which the defendant was aware of prior to the incident.
* The defendant was informed by friends and family that the driver had been drinking heavily before taking the vehicle.
* The driver had recently failed a driving test, which the defendant knew about and chose to ignore.
* The defendant had witnessed the driver struggle to operate the vehicle safely on multiple occasions, raising concerns about their driving abilities. - Element 4. The defendant permitted the driver to drive the vehicle. The defendant allowed someone else to use their vehicle, which is a key part of proving that they were careless in letting an unqualified or reckless driver take control of the car.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant provided the keys to the vehicle to the driver without any restrictions or conditions.
* The defendant was aware that the driver had a history of reckless driving prior to allowing them to operate the vehicle.
* The defendant did not supervise or monitor the driver’s use of the vehicle during the time it was entrusted.
* The defendant had previously allowed the driver to use the vehicle on multiple occasions without incident.
* The defendant failed to take any action to prevent the driver from using the vehicle despite knowing they were under the influence of alcohol. - Element 5. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff was harmed means that the person who is suing experienced some kind of injury or damage, whether physical, emotional, or financial, as a direct result of someone else’s careless decision to lend a dangerous item, like a car or a weapon, to an unqualified person.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff suffered physical injuries requiring medical treatment after being involved in an accident caused by the defendant’s negligently entrusted vehicle.
* The plaintiff incurred significant medical expenses due to the injuries sustained in the accident, impacting their financial stability.
* The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety as a result of the accident, affecting their daily life and well-being.
* The plaintiff lost wages due to time off work for recovery from injuries sustained in the accident.
* The plaintiff’s property was damaged during the accident, resulting in additional financial burdens and loss of personal belongings. - Element 6. The driver’s incompetence or unfitness to drive was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff. In a negligent entrustment claim, it must be shown that the driver’s lack of skill or ability to drive safely played a significant role in causing injury or damage to the person making the claim.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The driver had a history of multiple traffic violations, including speeding and reckless driving, indicating a pattern of unsafe behavior behind the wheel.
* The driver had recently failed a driving test, demonstrating a lack of necessary skills and knowledge to operate a vehicle safely.
* The driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident, impairing their ability to make sound judgments while driving.
* The driver had not completed a driver safety course, which is recommended for individuals with prior driving infractions.
* The driver was operating a vehicle despite having a suspended license due to previous unsafe driving incidents, showing a disregard for legal driving requirements.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 724.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Negligent Entrustment, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Negligent Entrustment Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only