Negligent Entrustment

Negligent entrustment is a variant of the common law tort of negligence. Hays v. Royer, 384 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Mo. App.
W.D. 2012). It is negligence to permit a third person to use a thing or to engage in an activity which is under the
control of the actor if that would create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

The essential elements of a negligent entrustment claim are:

• the entrustee is incompetent by reason of age, experience, habitual recklessness, or otherwise;
• the entrustor knew or had reason to know of the entrustee’s incompetence;
• there was an entrustment of the chattel (motor vehicle, firearm, etc.);
• and the negligence of the entrustor concurred with the conduct of the entrustee as a proximate cause of the harm
  to the plaintiff.

To assert a successful claim of negligent entrustment, the defendant must have an ownership interest in the vehicle (or another thing) entrusted or must have authority
to control the use it.

“Negligent entrustment occurs when the defendant ‘supplies’ a chattel to another” with actual or constructive
knowledge that the entrustment creates an unreasonable risk of injury.

A “supplier” means someone who “gives possession of a chattel for another’s use.”

Missouri Court applies negligent entrustment but have not used it when a parent entrusts a vehicle owned by an adult
child. We are trying to do this in a case. Other states have done so with inconsistent results:

• Broadwater v. Dorsey, 344 Md. 548, 688 A.2d 436, 437 (1997) (finding that “parents who sell or give an
  automobile to an adult child are not responsible for damages when they lack the power to control the child or
  the automobile.”);
• Zedella v. Gibson, 165 Ill.2d, 209 Ill.Dec. 27, 650 N.E.2d 1000,1004 (1995) (finding that cosigning a loan “was
  merely a link in the chain that facilitated [his son’s] acquisition, and subsequent possession and use, of the
  vehicle, but did not itself constitute an entrustment.”);
• Vince v. Wilson, 151 Vt. 425, 561 A.2d 103, 105 (1989) (finding that someone who provides funding to an
  incompetent driver can be considered an entrustor because “the issue is clearly one of negligence to be
  determined by the jury under proper instruction; the relationship of the defendant to the particular
  instrumentality is but one factor to be considered.”)
• In deciding this issue in Lockhart v. Carlyle, 585 S.W.3d 310 (Mo App. Ct, W.D.), the Court notes that the
  ability to entrust property is fundamentally grounded in the relationship between a purported entrustor and the
  subject chattel.

In every Missouri decision recognizing a viable negligent entrustment claim, the defendant has exercised control of
the chattel, or at a minimum has had the capacity to exercise control over the chattel either before and/or after
the purported “entrustment.” See Hays, 384 S.W.3d at 337 (stating that the plaintiff must show that the entrustor’s
right of control was superior to that of the entrustee’s).

The parent/adult child relationship between parent and adult child simply cannot serve as a substitute for the adult
child’s lack of authority or dominion over the vehicle.

Negligent Entrustment Lawyer St. Louis | Burger Law

If you have a personal injury case and believe negligent entrustment plays a role, Burger Law can help. Reach out to
us today to discuss your case with a St. Louis personal injury lawyer now.

Gary Burger

Founder | Injury Attorney
Gary Burger has dedicated his career to standing up against bullies. The founder and principal attorney of Burger Law | St. Louis Personal Injury Lawyer has helped hundreds of Missouri and Illinois individuals and families recover th …
Years of experience: 30 years
Location: St. Louis, MO

Chat With Us