Any suggestions or help on who would be responsible for a motor vehicle accident under the following fact scenario. County is planning to enter into a contract with the State where the County would provide a vehicle to transport gravel but a State employee would drive the vehicle. Could County be liable under negligent entrustment if State employee is responsible for accident? Could County insert clause in contract to ensure that State would be responsible for all acts by its employee including but not limited to negligence, reckless, or intentional? Also could County require State to bond its employee?

Offhand, I don't know of any case holding that negligent entrustment is a viable theory of liability under the Tort Claims Act. In fact, it would appear that, under the facts you suggest, the county's liability would be foreclosed under LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett Indep. Sch. Dist., 835 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tex. 1992). Specifically, to satisfy the "arises from" condition in section 101.021, the required operation or use of the motor-driven vehicle at issue must be by an employee of the defendant governmental unit. Further, the viability of negligent entrustment under the Tort Claims Act appears dubious (under current controlling authority), since the act of allowing the state employee to use the vehicle would do no more than furnish the condition that makes the ultimate injury possible. See Dallas County Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Tex. 1998). At the same time, negligent entrustment is essentially a theory of culpability by omission (failure to prevent foreseeable harm). Non-use of property cannot support a Tort Claims Act waiver of sovereign immunity. Despite all that fancy-schmancy law stuff, your county still could wind up in a lawsuit, with the attendant need to litigate a plea to the jurisdiction at the least. A requirement of insurance to cover any county liability would provide a measure of protection. Another possibility would be to lease the vehicle to the state, since lessors generally have no duty to prevent injury to third parties resulting from the lessee's use of property. You may also want to consider allocation of responsibility for maintenance of the vehicle, since litigation can certainly arise from that issue as well (e.g., brake failure).