A negligent entrustment claim may arise when someone with control over a vehicle allows another person to drive despite knowing — or having reason to know — that the person may be unable to operate it safely.
The claim is different from a standard negligence claim against the driver; it focuses on the actions of the person who supplied or permitted use of the vehicle. But ownership or permission alone doesn’t automatically establish liability — the evidence must connect the decision to provide the vehicle with the driver’s negligent conduct and the resulting accident.
Key takeaways
Negligent entrustment generally involves placing a vehicle (or another potentially dangerous item) under the control of someone not reasonably capable of using it safely. The person who provided the vehicle is sometimes called the “entrustor,” and the driver who received permission the “entrustee.” A claim may allege that:
The specific evidence and legal requirements depend on the facts.
A negligent entrustment claim doesn’t necessarily depend on whether the defendant was the titled owner. Under Nebraska case law, the essential issue is generally whether the defendant had the authority to permit or prohibit the driver’s use of the vehicle — in other words, control may matter more than legal ownership. (This principle should be confirmed against the governing Nebraska decisions before relying on it.) That distinction may matter when a vehicle is controlled by:
Being related to the driver, living in the same household, or appearing on a vehicle document may not be enough by itself — the circumstances surrounding permission and control must be examined.
A prior mistake or citation doesn’t automatically make someone incompetent to drive. The concern is whether the person providing the vehicle knew or should reasonably have recognized a meaningful risk. Facts that may receive attention include whether the driver:
The significance of these facts depends on what the person controlling the vehicle actually knew or reasonably should have known before permitting its use.
Negligent entrustment isn’t established merely because an unsafe person received access to a vehicle. Nebraska law requires a connection between the entrustment, the driver’s negligent operation, and the accident: a claimant generally must show that the driver operated the vehicle negligently and that the negligence was a proximate cause of the crash. (Confirm the controlling Nebraska authority for this requirement.) For example, evidence that a vehicle was provided to an inexperienced driver may be relevant — but if an unrelated mechanical failure caused the collision and the driver’s conduct played no role, the necessary causal connection may be disputed.
These cases often require evidence beyond the crash report, from several sources.
Permission or control — vehicle title and registration; insurance documents; keys and access arrangements; texts or emails discussing use; statements from the driver, owner, family, or coworkers; company vehicle policies; employment records; and testimony about who decided when and how the vehicle could be used.
The driver — license status; driving history; prior citations; previous accidents; training records; alcohol or drug test results; witness observations; medical restrictions relevant to driving; and messages showing warnings or concerns. Prior driving problems aren’t automatically admissible or sufficient — relevance may depend on similarity, timing, the rules of evidence, and whether the entrustor knew about them.
The accident — the police report; photos and videos; traffic-camera or surveillance recordings; vehicle event-data information; phone records; witness statements; vehicle inspections; medical records; and testimony about how the collision occurred.
Preserving evidence early matters, because vehicles can be repaired or destroyed, recordings overwritten, and memories fade.
A parent allows an unlicensed minor to drive. A claim may be considered when an adult knowingly permits an underage or unlicensed minor to drive and the minor’s negligence causes a crash. Whether liability exists still depends on the driver’s conduct, causation, and the complete record.
A vehicle is provided to an impaired driver. If someone permits a visibly intoxicated or drug-impaired person to drive, evidence of the impairment and the entrustor’s knowledge may become important. The investigation may examine where the parties were, what the entrustor observed, and whether other transportation was discussed.
An employer assigns a vehicle to an unsafe employee. An issue may arise when a business authorizes an employee to drive a company vehicle despite known licensing problems, prior crashes, repeated violations, or inadequate training. Such cases may also involve separate questions about scope of employment — negligent entrustment and employer responsibility are related but distinct theories.
A person repeatedly lends a vehicle to a reckless driver. A pattern of dangerous driving may be relevant if the entrustor knew about it and kept allowing access; insurers may dispute whether the earlier conduct was serious enough, sufficiently similar, or actually known.
Generally, no. An owner may lend a vehicle to a properly licensed, apparently competent driver without reason to anticipate unsafe conduct; if that driver later makes an unexpected mistake, the owner isn’t automatically responsible under negligent entrustment. The central questions usually are: Who had authority over the vehicle? Why was the driver allegedly unsafe? What did the entrustor know? Did they nevertheless allow the driver to use it? Did the relevant driving problem contribute to the collision?
Depending on the facts, a claim may be asserted against both. The theories differ — the claim against the driver concerns how the vehicle was operated; the entrustment claim concerns the separate decision to place the vehicle in that driver’s control. Available insurance may also require separate investigation, potentially including the owner’s policy, the driver’s policy, a household policy, a commercial policy, or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, depending on the policy language and circumstances.
An insurer or defendant may argue the injured person also contributed. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09, negligence attributed to a claimant proportionately reduces the damages, and recovery is barred if the claimant’s negligence is equal to or greater than the total negligence of the parties they’re recovering from. Fault allocation can get more complicated with multiple defendants — the driver, the entrustor, and an employer or business.
Nebraska generally provides a four-year limitations period for certain injury claims not arising from a contract. (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207.) A different period or notice requirement may apply depending on the defendants, the type of claim, the injured person’s age, and other circumstances — claims involving a government vehicle, wrongful death, or a minor should be reviewed separately. Waiting can also make evidence harder to obtain even before the deadline expires.
After medical attention and reporting, consider:
Avoid altering, discarding, or posting important evidence on social media — statements made shortly after an accident may become part of an insurance or legal proceeding.
What’s the difference between negligent driving and negligent entrustment? Negligent driving concerns the driver’s conduct behind the wheel; negligent entrustment concerns another person’s decision to give an unsafe driver control of the vehicle. Both may be examined in the same claim.
Is a vehicle owner always responsible when someone else causes an accident? No. Ownership alone doesn’t establish liability — the evidence must support a theory such as negligent entrustment, an employment relationship, or another basis.
Can someone other than the titled owner negligently entrust a vehicle? Potentially. Nebraska law focuses on whether the person had authority to permit or prohibit the vehicle’s use, so a person with actual control may be relevant even if not on the title.
Does an expired or suspended license — or one prior ticket — prove negligent entrustment? Not necessarily. License status and prior incidents may be important evidence, but the whole situation matters, including what the entrustor knew and whether the driver’s conduct caused the crash. A single minor citation usually doesn’t prove incompetence.
What if the driver took the vehicle without permission? Lack of permission may undermine the claim. Evidence about access to keys, previous use, household practices, and communications may be needed to determine whether the driver had express or implied permission.
Can a company face a negligent entrustment claim? Yes, if someone acting for the business provided a vehicle to a driver it knew or should have known was unsafe. Hiring, training, driving-record reviews, and vehicle policies may become relevant.
Can negligent entrustment apply to rental vehicles? Rental cases can involve contracts, company procedures, state law, insurance provisions, and federal law, so liability shouldn’t be assumed solely because a rental company supplied the vehicle.
Negligent entrustment claims may raise questions about who controlled the vehicle, who gave the driver permission to use it, and whether that person knew or reasonably should have known that the driver could not operate it safely. Answering these questions may require examining the driver’s license status, driving history, previous accidents or violations, communications between the parties, and the circumstances surrounding the crash.
Evaluating a potential claim may involve reviewing photographs, the police report, witness information, vehicle ownership and insurance records, text messages, employment or company-vehicle policies, medical records and bills, lost-income documentation, and communications with the insurance companies. Preserving this evidence may help clarify who had authority over the vehicle, what was known about the driver, and whether the decision to provide the vehicle contributed to the accident.
If you were injured in an Omaha car accident involving a borrowed, family-owned, or company vehicle, Inkelaar Law can help you understand the factors that may affect your situation. The firm can also discuss potentially responsible parties, available insurance coverage, evidence that may need to be preserved, and the legal deadlines that may apply under Nebraska law.
You may contact Inkelaar Law to request a free consultation.
Call: 1-833-INK-WINS
Visit: justiceyoudeserve.com
Schedule online: Calendar
Serving Omaha and communities throughout Nebraska.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be interpreted as legal advice for any specific situation. Reading this content does not establish an attorney–client relationship. If you have questions about your circumstances or need guidance on a legal matter, consider consulting with a licensed attorney in your state.
Español
