MBE Rules · Torts
Negligent Entrustment
Negligent entrustment
The rule
One who supplies a chattel (car, gun) to a person known or reasonably knowable to be incompetent or reckless is directly liable for resulting harm — liability is for the entrustor's own negligence, not vicarious.
In plain English
Negligent entrustment occurs when someone provides a dangerous item, like a car or a gun, to a person they know or should know is not responsible enough to handle it safely. If that person then causes harm while using the item, the person who entrusted it can be held liable for their own negligence in making that decision.
Worked example
A father lends his car to his son, who has a history of reckless driving and has recently had his license suspended. The son gets into an accident while driving the car, injuring another driver. The father is found liable for negligent entrustment because he knew his son was not competent to drive safely.
Memory hook
Don't hand over the keys to a reckless driver!
The trap
Exams often include fact patterns where the incompetence of the person receiving the chattel is subtle or implied, leading students to overlook the entrustor's liability. Students may confuse this with vicarious liability, which is not applicable here.
How examiners test it
Questions typically present a scenario involving a dangerous item and a person with a questionable history, prompting candidates to analyze the relationship and the knowledge of the entrustor regarding the recipient's competence.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.