How To Prove A Florida Negligent Entrustment Claim
In Florida, a claim of Negligent Entrustment is defined as:
Negligent Entrustment is 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 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. There was a duty of care owed by the defendant. In a Negligent Entrustment Claim, the defendant had a responsibility to ensure that they only allowed someone capable and trustworthy to use their property, like a car or tool, to prevent harm to others.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant owned a vehicle that was known to be in poor condition and had a history of mechanical failures.
* The defendant had previously lent the vehicle to individuals who were not licensed to drive.
* The defendant was aware that the borrower had a history of reckless driving and substance abuse.
* The defendant regularly allowed untrained individuals to operate the vehicle without supervision.
* The defendant had a responsibility to ensure that only qualified and responsible individuals were entrusted with the vehicle. - Element 2. The defendant owned, leased, or otherwise had control over a dangerous object or had the authority to entrust it to someone else. In a negligent entrustment claim, this element means that the person being accused either owned or had control over a dangerous item, like a car or a firearm, and had the power to decide whether to let someone else use it.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant owned a vehicle that was involved in the accident and had the keys in their possession at the time.
* The defendant regularly allowed their friend to use their motorcycle, demonstrating control over the dangerous object.
* The defendant had the authority to grant access to the construction equipment, which was left unsecured on the job site.
* The defendant was the registered owner of a firearm that was not stored safely, posing a risk to others.
* The defendant had previously loaned their car to an unlicensed driver, indicating a pattern of negligent entrustment. - Element 3. The owner entrusted the dangerous object to a person whom they knew or should have known was unfit or incompetent to operate it safely. A person can be held legally responsible if they gave a dangerous item to someone they knew, or should have known, was not capable of using it safely, leading to harm or damage.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The owner was aware that the individual had previously been involved in accidents while operating similar dangerous objects.
* The individual had a documented history of reckless behavior and substance abuse, which the owner knew about prior to the entrustment.
* The owner failed to verify the individual’s qualifications or training before allowing them to operate the dangerous object.
* The owner had received multiple complaints from others regarding the individual’s unsafe handling of equipment in the past.
* The owner had previously denied the individual access to the dangerous object due to concerns about their competence. - Element 4. The owner had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge (should have known) of the driver’s unfitness or incompetence. This means the vehicle owner either knew the driver was unfit or should have realized it, indicating they were careless in allowing someone unqualified to use their vehicle, which can lead to legal responsibility if an accident occurs.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The owner had previously received multiple complaints about the driver’s reckless behavior while operating a vehicle.
* The owner was aware that the driver had a history of traffic violations, including speeding and driving under the influence.
* The owner had observed the driver engaging in unsafe driving practices on several occasions prior to the incident.
* The owner failed to conduct a background check despite knowing the driver had a questionable driving record.
* The owner was informed by a mutual acquaintance that the driver was not fit to drive due to erratic behavior. - Element 5. There was a causal connection between the negligent entrustment and the resulting harm. In a negligent entrustment claim, this element means that the harm caused was directly linked to the act of allowing someone unfit to use a vehicle or item, showing that the decision to let them use it led to the injury or damage that occurred.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly rented a vehicle to an individual with a history of reckless driving.
* The individual operated the vehicle at high speeds, resulting in a collision with another car.
* The defendant failed to verify the individual’s driving record before allowing the rental.
* Witnesses reported that the individual exhibited dangerous driving behavior shortly after leaving the rental location.
* The rental vehicle was involved in multiple prior incidents, which the defendant was aware of before the rental.
(See Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 2003). Kitchen v. K-Mart Corp., 697 So. 2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 1997). Weber v. Marino Parking Sys., 100 So. 3d 729 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2012.)
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 FL Negligent Entrustment Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only