accident occurred); Sansonetti v. City of St. Joseph, 976 S.W.2d 572, 579 (Mo.Ct.App.1998) (no negligent entrustment claim because seller had permanently relinquished car to buyer two weeks prior to the accident); Kirk v. Miller, 7 Kan.App.2d 504, 644 P.2d 486, 490 (1982) (no negligent entrustment claim against seller who no longer owned vehicle when no evidence indicated that seller knew buyer was an incompetent driver and had no liability insurance), review denied (Kan. June 28, 1982); Sikora v. Wade, 135 N.J.Super. 62, 342 A.2d 580, 582 (1975) (attaching liability to a vendor who sold a car without investigating the purchaser’s background would "unduly hamper commerce and would pose an undue burden on ordinary business relationships”); Rush v. Smitherman, 294 S.W.2d 873, 876 (1956) (<HOLDING>); but see Small v. St. Francis Hosp., 220
holding that unlicensed driver who was driving vehicle with permission of owners permittee could reasonably believe that permittee had authority to permit him to drive vehicle and thus driv er was entitled to liability coverage notwithstanding auto policy exclusion for any person using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that person is entitled to do so driver could have reasonable belief that he was entitled to use vehicle even though he was unlicensed where he was doing so at specific request of permittee and actual owner never instructed driver not to drive vehicle nor instructed permittee not to allow others to drive vehicle holding that liability for negligently entrusting a vehicle to an unlicensed driver is part of the law of bailments but not part of the law of sales or gifts holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle holding that the driver of an emergency vehicle is not entitled to receive qualified public official immunity because the normal operation of a vehicle including those on an emergency mission is not ordinarily a discretionary act for which immunity will shield the driver from liability for negligence holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court