Laws vary from state to state, but in states that recognize a claim for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle, the plaintiff generally must show that:

• the owner of the vehicle entrusted the vehicle to another person;

• the person to whom the motor vehicle was entrusted was an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver;

• at the time of the entrustment, the owner of the motor vehicle knew or should have known that the person to whom the motor vehicle was entrusted was an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver;

• the person to whom the motor vehicle was entrusted was negligent on the occasion in question; and

• the negligence of the person to whom the motor vehicle was entrusted proximately caused the accident.

Even the lack of a required legal license does not establish incompetence or recklessness. Whether a driver has a license does not determine whether a driver is in fact incompetent. Some incompetent drivers are licensed, and some competent drivers are unlicensed.

If a state’s statutes require an operator of a given motor vehicle to be legally licensed to operate it, then permitting the driver to operate it without a legal license may constitute negligence per se.

Although state laws require licensing to operate some motor vehicles (automobiles), they often do not require licensing to operate other motor vehicles (forklifts). In the absence of a licensing requirement, the plaintiff must show the defendant knew or should have known the operator of the motor vehicle was incompetent or reckless, not that he was uncertified or lacked formal training to operate the motor vehicle.

In Alaska, as in many states, the concept of negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle arises when the owner of a vehicle allows someone else to use it, knowing that the person is unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless. To establish a claim for negligent entrustment in Alaska, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the vehicle owner entrusted their vehicle to another person; that the person was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; that the owner knew or should have known of that person's inability to safely operate the vehicle; that the person was negligent while using the vehicle; and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. It's important to note that simply lacking a legal license does not automatically prove incompetence or recklessness. In cases where a license is legally required to operate a vehicle, allowing an unlicensed person to drive may be considered negligence per se. However, for vehicles that do not require a license, such as forklifts, the plaintiff must show that the owner knew or should have known of the driver's incompetence or recklessness, regardless of certification or formal training.