Vancouver Motors U-Drive Ltd. v. Walker

Vancouver Motors U-Drive Ltd. v. Walker

Majority: delivery of the vehicle by the owner's employees, induced by the hirer's representations, constituted express consent within s.74A because possession was acquired as the result of the owner's agents freely exercising the owner's will; therefore the owner is civilly liable for damage caused by the driver.

Citation
[1942] SCR 391
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Vancouver Motors U-Drive Limited; Defendant (driver): Calvin Walker; Plaintiff / Respondent: Edwin Gordon Terry; Plaintiff / Respondent: Robert L. Morrow
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 1942
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed; costs to respondents
Legal Topics
Owner Liability, Consent, Fraud/personation, Possession, Vicarious Liability, Driver's Licence Requirements, Entrustment
Source Language
English
Torts Motor Vehicle Law Contract Law Agency Statutory Interpretation Owner Liability Consent Fraud/personation +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vancouver Motors U-Drive Limited

Appellant / Defendant

Calvin Walker

Defendant (driver)

Edwin Gordon Terry

Plaintiff / Respondent

Robert L. Morrow

Plaintiff / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort/negligence) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether driver acquired possession of rental vehicle with the owner's express consent within s.74A of the Motor Vehicle Act
  2. 2 Whether consent induced by fraud or misrepresentation as to identity vitiates statutory 'consent' under s.74A
  3. 3 Whether possession for purposes of s.74A requires lawful right to control (not merely physical custody)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: delivery of the vehicle by the owner's employees, induced by the hirer's representations, constituted express consent within s.74A because possession was acquired as the result of the owner's agents freely exercising the owner's will; therefore the owner is civilly liable for damage caused by the driver.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed; costs to respondents

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment against Vancouver Motors U-Drive Limited and Calvin Walker affirmed (awards below upheld)