Lawyers: JOIN NOW

Implied or Explicit Consent Needed for Vicarious Liability

The Advocate Files: Personal Injury | Vicarious Liability


Implied or Explicit Consent Needed for Vicarious Liability

Car owners must have given consent to another driver’s use of the vehicle before they can be held liable for that person’s negligence, Oakville personal injury lawyer Gary Will says.

Will, managing partner of Will Davidson LLP, says a recent decision involving an adult child who crashed his mother’s car reinforces the law on s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act, which governs vicarious liability for negligent acts.

“The decision is consistent with previous cases, which state that owners are ordinarily responsible for damages unless their motor vehicle is being driven without consent,” he says. “In this case, the judge found on the facts that the owner had not given consent to the driver, either explicitly or implicitly before the accident.”

The son was the original owner of the truck that was involved in the crash but had stopped using it in 2005 when his licence was suspended. Ownership was then transferred to his mother — the only licensed driver in the home — in 2009.

One night in the summer of 2012, when the son was home alone after consuming alcohol, he took the keys from their resting place on hooks by the front door, and subsequently crossed a highway median and crashed head-on into the plaintiff’s vehicle.

According to the decision, it was the first time he had driven since his licence was suspended, and he had never asked his mother for permission to drive the truck because he knew she would have refused.

The plaintiff’s insurer, whose policy was activated by the driver’s lack of insurance, applied for a declaration that the mother, who had a valid insurance policy, should be held vicariously liable for the son’s negligence.

Both the son and his mother, who testified that her son had otherwise always acted responsibly when living in her home, agreed that he was driving without her permission. But the insurer argued that consent should be implied, because she had done nothing to expressly forbid his use of the vehicle or to limit his access to it.

Leaving the truck in the driveway with the keys on a hook was an open invitation to the son to drive it, the insurer claimed, arguing the mother should be held liable for the damages he caused behind the wheel.

However, the motion judge rejected that “broad” interpretation of consent.

“[The insurer’s] position seems to impose liability on an owner for an accident unless steps are taken to prevent unauthorized use of the vehicle. The approach essentially requires that an owner hide their keys in order to avoid liability. However, in my view, this is hardly what is contemplated by s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. Nor does [the insurer’s] suggested interpretation accord with the ordinary meaning of ‘consent,’” the judge wrote.

“There must be an understanding between both the owner and the driver (either express or implied) that the driver is authorized by the owner to use the vehicle. In this case, on the evidence before me, there was no consent given to [her son] to drive the vehicle. The evidence filed on the motion indicates the exact opposite.”

Will says the result may have been different if the son previously attempted to use the vehicle.

“There are other cases where a child has a track record of using the vehicle against the parents’ wishes, but with their knowledge,” he explains. “And in circumstances where they continued to leave the keys in an easily accessible place, the parents may be found to have implicitly consented to the child’s use.”

Does this article speak to you? Was it helpful?

The points discussed above are from a certified specialist in civil law. Mr. Will is a lawyer that focuses his practice on personal injury law. If you or a loved one have been seriously injured anywhere in Ontario contact Gary Will for a free, no obligation consultation.

View the profile of this Oakville personal injury lawyer


This and other articles / posts originally appeared on the now defunct As expressed in writing by that website’s owner, the articles / posts, part of a paid service provided by Advocate Daily, are the intellectual property of the lawyer and/or legal service provider who wrote, or for whom the article / post was written and they are free to use as they wish. All articles / posts redeployed on Top Lawyers are done with the expressed consent of the professionals mentioned in said article / post.

Sponsored Ads: Firms to Keep Top of Mind

Lawyers: Join Today!

  • Increase your online visibility.
  • Drive traffic to your existing website.
  • Grow your legal practice.
  • Don't see your city and/or practice area?
    Just let us know - We can add it!
  • Click here for details.

Call: (Local) 416-988-4LAW (4529)
Call: (Toll Free) 1-888-645-5228

Experienced Lawyers To Help With Your Legal Needs

One of the things that differentiates Top Lawyers from other directories is our exclusivity. As our name suggests, we only list experienced lawyers that meet strict, minimum practice, experience and/or recognition requirements.

These requirements include:
(One or more of the following)

  • Awarded the recognition of “Queen’s Counsel” (Q.C. Designation)
  • Recognized by their Bar Association or Law Society as a “Certified Specialist”
  • Partner in a law firm and in good standing with the legal governing body of their province
  • Have practiced in their preferred area of law for a minimum of ten years

What does this mean to you, the general public?

You can have confidence in selecting and retaining the experienced lawyers listed here. They have "Been there. Done that" and bring their considerable knowledge and skill to support every case they undertake. After all...

"When you really need a lawyer - You want a Top Lawyer.™"

Top Lawyers ™ - Leading Canadian Lawyers