Wrongful Death from Negligent Entrustment Claims in Arizona

TL;DR

In Arizona, a wrongful death claim based on negligent entrustment holds a person or entity liable for providing a dangerous item, like a vehicle, to someone they knew or should have known was unfit to use it, resulting in a fatal accident. To succeed, the surviving family must prove the owner entrusted the item, the user was incompetent or reckless, the owner was aware of this unfitness, the user’s negligence caused the death, and the owner’s act of entrusting was a direct cause of the harm. This creates a separate path to accountability beyond just suing the at-fault operator.

Key Highlights

Dual Liability: Negligent entrustment allows victims’ families to pursue claims against both the person who directly caused the death and the person or company that negligently provided the means to do so.
Proving Knowledge is Key: The central element is showing the owner knew or reasonably should have known the user was unfit (e.g., had a history of DUIs, was unlicensed, or was known to be reckless).
Who Can Be Sued: Defendants can include parents, employers, vehicle rental agencies, or anyone who lends a dangerous instrument to an unfit individual.
Arizona Law Governs: Claims are guided by Arizona’s Wrongful Death Act (A.R.S. § 12-611) and common law principles of negligence.
Types of Evidence: Success depends on strong evidence like driving records, criminal history, witness testimony, and internal company documents.

Fatal accidents on Arizona roads represent a persistent public safety issue. According to the Arizona Department of Transportation, there were 1,294 motor vehicle crash fatalities in the state in a recent year, a figure that underscores the devastating impact of unsafe driving. While many of these tragedies are caused by the direct actions of a single driver, a closer look often reveals a chain of poor decisions that extends beyond the person behind the wheel. In certain situations, the individual or entity that handed over the keys is also legally responsible for the outcome.

This area of law is governed by a combination of Arizona’s Wrongful Death Act, found in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 12-611 through § 12-613, and the common law tort of negligent entrustment. The wrongful death statutes grant specific family members the right to file a lawsuit when a person’s death is caused by the “wrongful act, neglect, or default” of another. Negligent entrustment provides the legal framework for establishing that “neglect” by holding a third party accountable for irresponsibly supplying a dangerous item, most commonly a vehicle, to an incompetent or reckless individual.

Understanding this legal connection is critical for families seeking justice and financial stability after a preventable loss. It opens an avenue for accountability that might otherwise be closed, particularly when the at-fault driver is uninsured or underinsured. By establishing that an owner or employer made a conscious or careless decision to enable a dangerous person, a family can build a case that addresses the full scope of responsibility. This approach focuses not just on the final act that caused the death, but on the critical failure in judgment that made the tragedy possible in the first place.

1. Understanding the Core Concepts: Wrongful Death and Negligent Entrustment in Arizona Law

To fully grasp how these claims work, it’s essential to understand the two legal principles involved and how they intersect. They are not the same thing; rather, negligent entrustment is a specific type of negligence that can serve as the foundation for a wrongful death lawsuit.

What is a Wrongful Death Claim in Arizona?

A wrongful death claim is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case. It arises when one person dies as a direct result of the misconduct or negligence of another party. The purpose of the lawsuit is to compensate the surviving family members for the losses they have suffered due to the death of their loved one.

Under A.R.S. § 12-612, the right to file a wrongful death lawsuit is limited to specific individuals, typically in this order:

The surviving spouse
The surviving children
A surviving parent or guardian
The personal representative of the deceased person’s estate

The law recognizes that the death has caused tangible and intangible harm to these family members. The compensation, or “damages,” is meant to address the financial and emotional voids left by the death, such as lost income, loss of companionship, and the sorrow experienced by the family.

What is Negligent Entrustment?

Negligent entrustment is a legal theory that holds a person liable for supplying a “chattel” (a piece of personal property) to another person whom the supplier knows, or should know, is likely to use it in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

While this can apply to various items like firearms or heavy equipment, it is most frequently applied in cases involving motor vehicles. The core of the claim is not about the ownership of the car itself but about the careless act of giving control of it to an unfit driver.

Example Scenario: A father knows his 19-year-old son has two prior DUI convictions and a suspended license. Despite this knowledge, he allows his son to borrow the family truck to go to a party. The son drives while intoxicated, runs a red light, and causes a collision that kills another driver.

In this case, two parties are at fault:

The Son: He is directly liable for causing the death through his drunk and reckless driving. A wrongful death claim can be filed against him.
The Father: He is separately liable for negligent entrustment. His wrongful act was giving the truck to someone he knew was unfit to drive. The family of the deceased can also file a wrongful death claim against the father based on this negligence.

This dual liability is a key feature. The father didn’t drive the car, but his decision to entrust it to his son was a direct cause of the fatal event.

2. The Five Essential Elements of a Negligent Entrustment Claim

For a wrongful death claim based on negligent entrustment to succeed in Arizona, the plaintiff (the surviving family member) must prove five specific elements. The failure to establish any one of these elements can cause the entire case to fail.

Element 1: There Was an Entrustment

This is the most straightforward element. The plaintiff must show that the defendant (the owner) gave permission to the third party (the operator) to use the item. This can be explicit or implicit.

Explicit Permission: “You can borrow my car.”
Implicit Permission: Leaving keys in an accessible place for a person who regularly uses the vehicle, creating a reasonable assumption of consent.

The defendant must have had the power to permit or prohibit the use of the item. For example, if a teenager takes a car without permission, a negligent entrustment claim against the parents would likely fail because there was no “entrustment.” However, if the parents consistently left the keys out knowing the teen had a history of taking the car without asking, an argument for implicit permission could be made.

Element 2: The Person Entrusted Was Incompetent or Unfit

The plaintiff must demonstrate that the person who received the item was unfit to use it safely. In vehicle accident cases, this unfitness can be established in several ways:

Intoxication: The driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the entrustment.
Inexperience or Lack of License: The driver was unlicensed, had an expired license, or lacked the necessary training for the specific vehicle (e.g., a commercial truck).
History of Reckless Driving: The driver had a known record of speeding tickets, at-fault accidents, or other moving violations.
Physical or Mental Impairment: The driver had a known medical condition, such as a seizure disorder or poor vision, that made driving unsafe.
Youth and Immaturity: While age alone isn’t enough, a young driver with a known pattern of irresponsible behavior could be deemed unfit.

Element 3: The Entrustor Knew or Should Have Known of the Unfitness

This is often the most contested element. The plaintiff must prove the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the operator’s incompetence.

Actual Knowledge: The owner was directly aware of the driver’s unfitness. For instance, a parent who was present when their child received a DUI or an employer who reviewed an employee’s poor driving record has actual knowledge.
Constructive Knowledge (“Should Have Known”): The owner did not have direct knowledge but would have discovered the unfitness if they had exercised reasonable care. A “reasonable person” standard is applied. For example, a commercial trucking company has a duty to check the driving records of its employees. Failing to do so, and then entrusting a truck to a driver with multiple DUIs, constitutes constructive knowledge. They should have known.

Element 4: The Unfit Person Proximately Caused the Injury Through Their Negligence

The entrustment itself is not enough. The person who was entrusted with the item must have then acted negligently and caused the death. Their actions must be the “proximate cause” of the harm, meaning the death was a direct and foreseeable result of their conduct.

Using the earlier example, the son’s act of driving drunk and running a red light was the negligent act that directly caused the fatal crash. If the son had driven safely and been hit by another driver, the father’s negligent entrustment would not be linked to the death.

Element 5: The Entrustor’s Negligence Was Also a Proximate Cause

Finally, the plaintiff must connect the owner’s act of entrustment to the final event. The owner’s decision to provide the vehicle must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. This element prevents an owner from being held liable for a completely unforeseeable event.

In most cases, this is clear. By providing the vehicle to an unfit driver, the owner created the very opportunity for the tragedy to occur. The fatal accident was a foreseeable consequence of giving a car to someone known to be a dangerous driver.

3. Who Can Be Held Liable? Identifying Potential Defendants

Negligent entrustment claims can apply to a wide range of individuals and entities. Identifying all potential defendants is crucial for ensuring that a family can receive full compensation for their loss.

Parents and Family Members

This is a common scenario. A parent, guardian, or other family member allows a relative to use their vehicle despite knowing they are unfit. This often involves:

A teenager with a history of reckless driving.
An adult child with a known substance abuse problem or multiple DUIs.
An elderly parent with cognitive or physical impairments that make driving dangerous.

Arizona law holds vehicle owners responsible for the way their property is used, especially when they knowingly enable a dangerous situation.

Employers

Companies have a legal duty to ensure their employees are qualified and competent to operate company vehicles or equipment. An employer can be held liable for negligent entrustment if they:

Fail to conduct background checks or review an employee’s motor vehicle record (MVR).
Allow an employee to continue driving a company vehicle after becoming aware of DUIs, license suspensions, or a pattern of accidents.
Do not provide adequate training for specialized vehicles like commercial trucks, forklifts, or construction machinery.
Pressure employees to violate hours-of-service regulations, leading to fatigued driving.

This is a direct liability claim against the employer for their own negligence, separate from the concept of “vicarious liability” (where an employer is automatically responsible for an employee’s actions within the scope of employment).

Vehicle Rental Companies

Car rental agencies have a responsibility to rent vehicles only to licensed and seemingly fit drivers. While they are not expected to conduct deep background checks on every customer, they can be found liable if they rent a car to someone who is:

Clearly intoxicated at the rental counter.
Presenting an obviously invalid or suspended driver’s license.
Not old enough to legally rent a vehicle according to company policy and state law.

Friends and Acquaintances

A person who lends their car to a friend can also be held liable. If you lend your car to a friend you know is heavily intoxicated or has told you their license is suspended, you could be named as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit if they cause a fatal crash. The law expects individuals to act with reasonable care, and entrusting a vehicle to a known danger is a breach of that duty.

4. Gathering Crucial Evidence to Build a Strong Case

A successful negligent entrustment claim depends entirely on the quality and strength of the evidence presented. Proving what an owner “knew or should have known” requires thorough investigation and documentation. An attorney will typically seek to gather the following types of evidence.

Official Records and Documents

Police Accident Report: This is the foundational document. It will identify the driver, the vehicle owner, and often includes the officer’s initial observations about impairment or fault.
Motor Vehicle Records (MVR): The driver’s official driving history from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) is critical. It will show past traffic violations, license suspensions, and prior accidents. This is powerful evidence to establish a history of unfitness.
Criminal Records: A background check can reveal prior convictions for DUI, drug offenses, or other reckless behavior that would establish the driver as a known risk.
Court Documents: Records from previous legal proceedings, such as a DUI sentencing, can prove the owner’s knowledge if they were involved (e.g., paying a fine or attending a hearing).

Witness Testimony

Witnesses can provide firsthand accounts that establish the owner’s knowledge of the driver’s incompetence. This could include:

Friends or Family Members: They may have witnessed the owner complaining about the driver’s recklessness or may have been present during previous incidents.
Co-workers (in employer cases): Colleagues might testify that the driver’s dangerous habits were common knowledge at the workplace or that management was warned about the employee.
First Responders: Police officers or paramedics can testify about the driver’s state at the scene of the accident (e.g., signs of intoxication).

Digital and Electronic Evidence

In the modern world, digital footprints can be a source of compelling evidence.

Social Media Posts: Photos, videos, or posts showing the driver engaging in reckless behavior (like drinking and driving or street racing) can be used. If the owner was “friends” with the driver online, it helps establish they were likely aware of this behavior.
Text Messages and Emails: Communications between the owner and the driver could reveal the owner’s knowledge. For example, a text message saying, “Don’t drink and drive tonight like you did last week,” is direct evidence of knowledge.

Employer-Specific Evidence

In cases involving an employer, an investigation would also focus on:

Company Policies and Procedures: Did the company have a policy for checking employee driving records? Did they follow it?
Employee Personnel Files: These files should contain the driver’s application, MVR reports, training records, and any disciplinary actions.
Internal Communications: Memos or emails between managers discussing concerns about the employee’s fitness to drive.

Building a strong evidentiary foundation is the most important step in linking the owner’s negligent decision to the tragic outcome.

5. Calculating Damages: What Compensation Can Be Recovered?

In an Arizona wrongful death claim, the damages awarded are intended to compensate the surviving family members for their own losses resulting from the death. A.R.S. § 12-613 specifies that the jury shall award “such damages as it deems fair and just with reference to the injury resulting from the death to the surviving parties who may be entitled to recover.”

These damages are typically categorized into economic and non-economic losses.

Economic Damages

These are the measurable financial losses the family has incurred and will incur in the future.

Loss of Income and Financial Support: This includes the wages, benefits, and other earnings the deceased would have provided to the family over their expected lifetime. An economist may be hired to project these future losses.
Loss of Household Services: This compensates for the value of services the deceased provided, such as childcare, home maintenance, cooking, and financial management.
Medical Expenses: Any medical bills incurred for the deceased’s treatment between the time of the accident and their death.
Funeral and Burial Expenses: The reasonable costs associated with the funeral and burial or cremation.

Non-Economic Damages

These are intangible losses that address the emotional and personal impact of the death. They are often the largest component of a wrongful death award.

Loss of Love, Care, and Companionship: Compensation for the loss of the unique relationship the family members had with the deceased.
Sorrow, Grief, and Mental Anguish: This acknowledges the profound emotional suffering of the surviving family members.
Loss of Guidance and Training (for surviving children): This applies to the loss of a parent’s instruction, mentorship, and upbringing.

Punitive Damages

In some cases, punitive damages may be available. Unlike compensatory damages, which are meant to make the family whole, punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant for egregious conduct and deter similar behavior in the future.

To be awarded punitive damages in Arizona, the plaintiff must prove with “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant acted with an “evil mind.” This means the defendant either intended to cause harm or acted with a conscious and deliberate disregard of an unjustifiably high risk of significant harm to others.

In a negligent entrustment case, punitive damages might be awarded against an owner who, for example, gave car keys to a visibly intoxicated person with multiple prior DUIs, demonstrating a complete indifference to the safety of others on the road.

6. Common Defenses and How to Counter Them

Defendants in negligent entrustment cases will raise several arguments to avoid liability. A skilled arizona wrongful death attorney must be prepared to anticipate and counter these common defenses.

Defense 1: “I Did Not Give Permission.”

The owner may claim the vehicle was stolen or used without their consent.

Counter-Argument: This defense can be overcome by establishing a history of permissive use. Evidence might include witness testimony that the driver frequently used the car, or proof that the keys were left in an accessible location. If the owner did not report the vehicle as stolen immediately after it was taken, their claim becomes less credible.

Defense 2: “I Did Not Know They Were Unfit.”

This is the most common defense. The owner will argue they were unaware of the driver’s dangerous history.

Counter-Argument: This is where the “should have known” standard is critical. Even if the owner lacked actual knowledge, a plaintiff can argue that a reasonable person in the owner’s position would have known. For an employer, this is countered by showing the company failed to follow industry standards for background checks. For a parent, it can be countered by demonstrating the child’s reckless behavior was obvious or that the parent had access to information (like mail from the MVD) that would have revealed the problem.

Defense 3: “The Driver’s Negligence Was the Sole Cause.”

The defendant may try to shift 100% of the blame to the driver, arguing that their own act of entrusting the vehicle was not a significant cause of the accident. This is known as a “superseding cause” defense.

Counter-Argument: The law recognizes that there can be more than one proximate cause of an injury. The plaintiff’s attorney will argue that the driver’s negligence was entirely foreseeable. When you give a car to a known drunk driver, it is foreseeable that they will drive drunk and cause an accident. Therefore, the owner’s negligence remains a direct and substantial cause of the death.

Defense 4: Comparative Fault

Under Arizona’s comparative fault rules (A.R.S. § 12-2505), a defendant can argue that the deceased person was partially at fault for the accident. If a jury agrees, any damages awarded to the family will be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to the deceased.

Counter-Argument: This requires a fact-intensive investigation of the accident itself to demonstrate the deceased acted reasonably and did not contribute to the collision. Even if the deceased is found partially at fault, it does not eliminate the liability of the negligent entrustor; it only reduces the final award.

Conclusion

When a life is lost due to another’s carelessness, the grief and disruption for the surviving family are immense. In cases where the tragedy was enabled by the irresponsible decision of a third party, an Arizona wrongful death claim based on negligent entrustment provides a vital path toward justice. This legal doctrine ensures that accountability extends beyond the person who committed the final wrongful act to include the person or entity that handed them the means to do so. Proving such a case requires a deep understanding of Arizona law, a meticulous investigation to uncover evidence of knowledge and unfitness, and the ability to demonstrate the clear causal link between the act of entrustment and the fatal outcome.

Successfully holding a vehicle owner, employer, or other party responsible can provide a family with the financial resources needed to face the future. More importantly, it sends a powerful message that the duty to protect public safety includes making responsible decisions about who is given control of potentially dangerous instruments. These claims reinforce the community standard that everyone shares a responsibility to prevent foreseeable harm.

If you have lost a loved one in an accident and believe that someone other than the at-fault driver contributed to the tragedy by entrusting them with a vehicle, it is essential to understand your legal rights. The complexities of proving knowledge and causation demand professional legal guidance. Taking prompt action to preserve evidence and explore all avenues of accountability is the first step toward securing the justice your family deserves. Contact us for free evaluation today.