In its most recent case involving the tort of negligent entrustment, Gadson v. ECO Services of South Carolina, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court declined to adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 308 and 390, which provide a broad standard of liability. Though the court correctly decided Gadson on the facts, it applied a very narrow standard of liability. This Comment argues that the court’s narrow statement is inconsistent with its prior caselaw and the general principle recognized in the Restatement that the right of control over a chattel creates a corresponding duty to exercise that control with due care. Therefore, this Comment analyzes South Carolina’s negligent entrustment decisions to show that its courts have used a standard of liability consistent with the Restatement, and argues that this broader standard furthers South Carolina’s policy goals. This Comment concludes that the supreme court should adopt sections 308 and 390 and that the narrow doctrinal statements in Gadson should be limited to its facts.