21.13 Negligent Entrustment

JurisdictionArizona

21.13 Negligent Entrustment. “Where one who owns a dangerous instrumentality, such as an automobile, and loans it to another who, to the knowledge of the owner, is incompetent to drive such a vehicle, the owner is guilty of negligence if the driver negligently injures another.”440 In Acuna v. Kroack ,441 the following jury instruction about negligent entrustment was approved: “(1) that defendant owned or controlled a vehicle; (2) defendant gave the driver permission to operate a vehicle; (3) the driver, by virtue of his physical or mental condition, was incompetent to drive safely; (4) the defendant knew or should have known that the driver, by virtue of his physical or mental condition, was incompetent to drive safely; (5) causation; and (6) damages.”

Proving incompetence is essential to succeeding on a negligent entrustment claim. Case law generally recognizes the following categories of incompetence: (1) incompetence based on age or experience; (2) incompetence based on physical or mental condition (e.g. intoxication); and (3) incompetence through known reckless behavior.442 While evidence of prior bad acts is generally not admissible into evidence, an exception applies to negligent entrustment cases. Because competence or fitness of a driver is a key factual element to an action for negligent entrustment, proving incompetence is essential to the claim. Therefore, in a negligent entrustment action, evidence of prior specific acts indicating incompetence or unfitness has been held admissible on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT