Negligent entrustment
Encyclopedia : N : NE : NEG : Negligent entrustment
|
| Tort law II |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Negligent torts |
| Negligence · Negligent hiring |
| Negligent entrustment |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress |
| Doctrines affecting liability |
| Duty of care · Standard of care |
| Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur |
| Calculus of negligence · Eggshell skull |
| Vicarious liability · Attractive nuisance doctrine>Attractive nuisance |
| Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue |
| Comparative responsibility |
| Duties owed to visitors to property |
| Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees |
| Defenses to negligence |
| Contributory negligence |
| Comparative negligence |
| Assumption of risk · Intervening cause |
| Strict liability |
| Ultrahazardous activity |
| Products liability |
| Nuisance |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Property law |
| Wills and trusts |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
Negligent entrustment is generally found where the entrustee had a reputation or record that showed his propensity to be dangerous through possession of such an instrumentality. Where the claim is against an employer, the employer will be held liable if the entrustee's record was known to the employer or would have been easily discoverable by that employer, had a diligent search been conducted. For example, suppose a bus company hires a driver who has a record of reckless driving, which the company could have learned of through a search of publicly available records. The company will be liable for the negligent entrustment of the bus to that driver, if the driver is in an accident.
Similarly, if Joey lends his handgun to Rachel, knowing that Rachel has a propensity for violence, Joey may be held to have negligently entrusted the gun to Rachel when she uses the gun to shoot someone during an argument. However, such cases are often harder to prove than negligent entrustment cases involving employment, because judges and juries are less likely to find that an entrustor had a duty to check on the publicly available records of an entrustee who was merely a friend. Evidence in such cases is usually presented through testimony about entrustor's knowledge of the entrustee's reputation for violence, and of specific acts of violence committed by the entrustor.
Negligent hiring compared
Negligent hiring differs from negligent entrustment hiring in two key respects. First, negligent hiring requires the actual employment of the party causing the injury, whereas a party can be held liable for negligent entrustment to any person. Second, an employer can be found liable for negligent hiring even without provision of any dangerous instrumentality to the employee. However, where an employer hires an unqualified person to engage in the use of a dangerous instrumentality, as in the above example with the bus driver, the employer may be liable for both negligent entrustment and negligent hiring.Vicarious liability compared
Vicarious liability is a separate theory of liability from negligent entrustment. The doctrine of vicarious liability provides that an employer is liable for the torts of an employee under an agency theory, even if the employer did nothing wrong; negligent entrustment, however, requires proof of actual negligence on part of the employer before the injury occurred, when the entrustee was entrusted with the dangerous instrumentality.External links
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.