In today’s hyper-connected, always-on world, the phone in a driver’s hand has become one of the most dangerous tools on the road — especially for companies with employees behind the wheel. Whether you manage a massive fleet of branded vehicles or simply have employees driving their own cars on company business, you may be exposed to legal liabilities you haven’t fully considered.
One of the most costly and overlooked exposures? Negligent entrustment.
What Is Negligent Entrustment?
Negligent entrustment is a legal doctrine that holds an employer liable if it knowingly (or even unknowingly) allows an employee to use a vehicle in a manner that creates unnecessary risk — especially when that risk leads to injury or death. It’s not just about giving the keys to someone with a suspended license or a known history of reckless driving. Increasingly, it includes allowing — or failing to prevent — known risks like cell phone use while driving.
When an employee crashes while texting, and that crash leads to injury or death, courts are increasingly asking:
“What did the company do to actively prevent this from happening?”
If the answer is “not much,” or “we had a written policy,” it’s often not enough.
Your Duty of Care Responsibility: More Than a Policy
The legal concept of duty of care demands that organizations take all reasonable steps to protect the public and their employees from preventable harm. In the case of employees who drive — whether in a company vehicle or a personal car — that duty includes proactively addressing distracted driving.
Having a signed cell phone use policy is a start — but in the eyes of the law, it’s often viewed as passive risk management. Courts are looking for proof of enforcement, not just intentions.
The moment an employee drives on behalf of the company — to visit a client, make a delivery, or even head to a training seminar — that activity falls under the organization’s duty of care. And if that employee causes a crash while using a phone, the company will be pulled into the legal and financial aftermath — whether or not they own the vehicle or the phone.
Real Lawsuits, Real Consequences
Let’s look at a few examples where negligent entrustment and cell phone use collided — and the results were financially devastating, though these cases are from the last decade, it is these cases that are conti:
Cochran v. Ernst & Young (California, 2014)
In this landmark case, a California appeals court ruled that employers must reimburse employees for work-related use of personal cell phones, regardless of the actual cost incurred. While not a negligent entrustment case per se, it set the stage for how companies are seen as responsible for cell phone usage tied to work, even on personal devices. That precedent has since been cited in legal arguments related to phone-related crashes.
Wilson v. Belhaven University (Mississippi, 2015)
A Belhaven University employee struck and killed a pedestrian while texting and driving. Although she was in her personal vehicle and using her personal phone, the court allowed the lawsuit to proceed on the grounds of negligent entrustment and failure to enforce cell phone policy. The university settled confidentially, but internal estimates put the exposure into the millions.
Trevino v. Great Western Trucking (Texas, 2012)
A commercial truck driver caused a fatal crash while using a company-issued phone. Even though the company had a “no phone use” policy, it was not enforced with any technology. The plaintiff’s attorneys argued this constituted negligent entrustment. The jury agreed, awarding the family $24 million.
These cases — and many others — show how failure to prevent distracted driving isn’t just a safety issue. It’s a high-risk legal liability that can ruin reputations and bankrupt companies.
Personal vs. Company Phones: Does It Matter?
Not really. From a legal perspective, the line between BYOD and corporate and devices disappears the moment someone is driving for company purposes.
- Corporate phone? The company knew, or should have known, the risk — and failed to prevent it. That’s a big exposure.
- BYOD phone? Still the company’s responsibility to ensure no dangerous behavior occurs while on company time.
The worst position is when companies provide the phone, know it can be used while driving, and fail to block its use. That’s where juries often find clear evidence of negligent entrustment.
A signed policy is seen as passive risk management. In litigation:
- Jurors want to see data, enforcement, and consequences—not just signed documents.
- If drivers regularly violate cell phone policies without tech-based intervention, corporate liability exposure increases markedly.
Without proof of active prevention, negligent entrustment claims can succeed even if a policy exists.
The Hidden Dangers of Relying on Policy Alone
Companies often think that having employees sign a cell phone policy is enough to demonstrate compliance and avoid liability. It’s not.
Jurors don’t trust policies. They want to see action. Policies without enforcement are easily dismissed in court as window dressing — especially when there’s evidence that employees were frequently violating them.
So what does enforcement look like?
LifeSaver Mobile: Your Proof of Prevention
From day one, implementing — or even just offering — LifeSaver Mobile demonstrates that your company is taking real, enforceable action to eliminate distracted driving. It blocks phone use while driving across both company-owned and personal (BYOD) devices, and it generates verifiable logs that prove policy enforcement, not just intent.
LifeSaver Mobile empowers companies to:
- Prevent distracted driving at the source
- Enforce mobile device policies with technology
- Fulfill and exceed duty of care obligations
- Reduce exposure to negligent entrustment claims
In the event of a crash, LifeSaver provides clear, defensible evidence that your company took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Even if an employee circumvents safeguards, audit logs help prove that the company did everything possible to mitigate risk.
Whether vehicles or phones are company-issued or not, LifeSaver is a powerful tool for organizations committed to reducing risk and protecting themselves legally. And if the worst happens, your response is indisputable:
“We didn’t just tell drivers not to use their phones — we gave them the tools to eliminate it.”
Negligent entrustment isn’t just a legal buzzword — it’s a real and growing risk that affects every company with drivers. And in today’s litigious environment, a single distracted driving crash can result in multimillion-dollar payouts if it’s shown that the company failed to prevent known risks.
The courts aren’t just asking what your policy says. They’re asking what you did.
With LifeSaver Mobile, you show — from day one — that you did everything in your power to keep your drivers and the public safe. Because in the event of a crash, the best defense is proof of prevention.
