first party had a duty to carry out background checks on the second party prior to providing them with the instrumentality. If Andy lends his chain saw to Thomas to cut down a tree in his back yard, and Thomas uses it to injure someone else in an argument, it would have be proved that Andy knew that Thomas was violent, or had a reason to carry out a criminal check on Thomas. It is unreasonable for people to carry out criminal reacord screenThey are two elements of negligent entrustment that defines it from negligent hiring. The first, and most obvious, is that negligent hiring requires the actual employment of the person causing the injury while negligent entrustment can apply to anyone, employed or not.

The second is that in the case of negligent hiring, the provision of a dangerous instrument need not be provided to the employee carrying out the injury. If that instrument is provided by an employer, then the employer could be guilty of both negligent hiring and negligent entrustment.

Negligent entrustment applies in tort law where the entrustor negligently supplies the entrustee with an instrument, and the entrustee then causes injury to a third party with that instrument. It commonly occurs where motor vehicles are provided to unqualified drivers or to drivers who have been guilty of a previous motoring offence that the provider of the vehicle could reasonable be expected to be aware of.

For example, if an employer hires a cab driver who had been previously convicted of dangerous driving, then provides him with a cab, the employers will be guilty of both negligent hiring and negligent entrustment if the driver collides with a pedestrian, causing injury. It could have been reasonable expected that the conviction would have been uncovered if a criminal or driving record search had been made, and the employer is therefore guilty of negligent hiring. Since it was the employer who provided the cab, negligent entrustment is also relevant. Had the driver provided his own cab then negligent entrustment would not have been involved.

Cases of negligent entrustment normally involve employer negligence. While employment need not be a factor, it is difficult to prove that the first party had a duty to carry out background checks on the second party prior to providing them with the instrumentality. If Andy lends his chain saw to Thomas to cut down a tree in his back yard, and Thomas uses it to injure someone else in an argument, it would have be proved that Andy knew that Thomas was violent, or had a reason to carry out a criminal check on Thomas. It is unreasonable for people to carry out criminal reacord screeni

ent is provided by an employer, then the employer could be guilty of both negligent hiring and negligent entrustment.

Negligent entrustment applies in tort law where the entrustor negligently supplies the entrustee with an instrument, and the entrustee then causes injury to a third party with that instrument. It commonly occurs where motor vehicles are provided to unqualified drivers or to drivers who have been guilty of a previous motoring offence that the provider of the vehicle could reasonable be expected to be aware of.

For example, if an employer hires a cab driver who had been previously convicted of dangerous driving, then provides him with a cab, the employers will be guilty of both negligent hiring and negligent entrustment if the driver collides with a pedestrian, causing injury. It could have been reasonable expected that the conviction would have been uncovered if a criminal or driving record search had been made, and the employer is therefore guilty of negligent hiring. Since it was the employer who provided the cab, negligent entrustment is also relevant. Had the driver provided his own cab then negligent entrustment would not have been involved.

Cases of negligent entrustment normally involve employer negligence. While employment need not be a factor, it is difficult to prove that the first party had a duty to carry out background checks on the second party prior to providing them with the instrumentality. If Andy lends his chain saw to Thomas to cut down a tree in his back yard, and Thomas uses it to injure someone else in an argument, it would have be proved that Andy knew that Thomas was violent, or had a reason to carry out a criminal check on Thomas. It is unreasonable for people to carry out criminal reacord screen

ing offence that the provider of the vehicle could reasonable be expected to be aware of.

For example, if an employer hires a cab driver who had been previously convicted of dangerous driving, then provides him with a cab, the employers will be guilty of both negligent hiring and negligent entrustment if the driver collides with a pedestrian, causing injury. It could have been reasonable expected that the conviction would have been uncovered if a criminal or driving record search had been made, and the employer is therefore guilty of negligent hiring. Since it was the employer who provided the cab, negligent entrustment is also relevant. Had the driver provided his own cab then negligent entrustment would not have been involved.

Cases of negligent entrustment normally involve employer negligence. While employment need not be a factor, it is difficult to prove that the first party had a duty to carry out background checks on the second party prior to providing them with the instrumentality. If Andy lends his chain saw to Thomas to cut down a tree in his back yard, and Thomas uses it to injure someone else in an argument, it would have be proved that Andy knew that Thomas was violent, or had a reason to carry out a criminal check on Thomas. It is unreasonable for people to carry out criminal reacord screen

ered if a criminal or driving record search had been made, and the employer is therefore guilty of negligent hiring. Since it was the employer who provided the cab, negligent entrustment is also relevant. Had the driver provided his own cab then negligent entrustment would not have been involved.

Cases of negligent entrustment normally involve employer negligence. While employment need not be a factor, it is difficult to prove that the first party had a duty to carry out background checks on the second party prior to providing them with the instrumentality. If Andy lends his chain saw to Thomas to cut down a tree in his back yard, and Thomas uses it to injure someone else in an argument, it would have be proved that Andy knew that Thomas was violent, or had a reason to carry out a criminal check on Thomas. It is unreasonable for people to carry out criminal reacord screen

first party had a duty to carry out background checks on the second party prior to providing them with the instrumentality. If Andy lends his chain saw to Thomas to cut down a tree in his back yard, and Thomas uses it to injure someone else in an argument, it would have be proved that Andy knew that Thomas was violent, or had a reason to carry out a criminal check on Thomas. It is unreasonable for people to carry out criminal reacord screening on neighbors before lending them tools.

Employers must carry out pre-employment screening to ensure that their is nothing in a prospective employee’s past to indicate that they could cause injury to other employees, or in any way put othesr at risk while carrying out the duties of their employment. If Robert has applied for a job as a cashier and records have indicated that he has twice been found guilty of careless driving, this would not normally prevent him from carrying out the cashier’s job, and there would be no reason to assume that he could cause harm to others in the finance department office since no driving was required.

However, if the same Robert then transferred to the delivery department and crashed the vehicle he had been provided with, causing enjury to others, the employers would be guilty of both negligent hiring and negligent entrustment, since the knew about the driving convictions. This would be true even if the actual individual responsible for the initial screening and interveiw was no longer employed by the company. A check of the employees records would have revealed the necessary information.

This is where some companies fall down in their employment screening procedure. Everybody knows good old Robert. He is a great cashier and does a fantastic job. However, he needs the extra money he will get from the overtime available with the driver’s job so let’s give it to him. He was a good cashier, never in trouble and always on time, so there’s no reason for him not to trransfer. Nobody thinks of checking up his original pre-employment screening records. The company is still legally liable and good old Robert could just have cost them a few million dollars with the double offence.

As an employer it is impo