Deakins v. Aarsen et al.

Deakins v. Aarsen et al.

The owner failed to prove lack of consent because the vehicle was for all practical purposes the son’s car, she exercised no control over who drove it, and the son’s conduct (instruction, leaving keys accessible and prior use by the driver) established implied consent through him to the respondent driver; therefore the s.105(1) exception did not apply and owner remained liable.

Citation
[1971] SCR 609
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Ellen Deakins; Plaintiff Respondent: Otto Aarsen; Plaintiff Respondent: Mary Aarsen; Defendant Respondent: Lois Elaine Deakins
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1970
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (challenge to Liability Under Statutory Exception)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Owner Liability, Consent, Implied Consent, Highway Traffic Act S.105(1)
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Negligence Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Owner Liability Consent Implied Consent Highway Traffic Act S.105(1)

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellen Deakins

Defendant Appellant

Otto Aarsen

Plaintiff Respondent

Mary Aarsen

Plaintiff Respondent

Lois Elaine Deakins

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (challenge to Liability Under Statutory Exception)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vehicle was "without the owner’s consent in the possession of some person other than the owner or his chauffeur" within s.105(1)
  2. 2 Whether implied consent can be inferred from the conduct of the owner's son and owner's tacit approval
  3. 3 Allocation of burden of proof on owner to show lack of consent

Ratio Decidendi

The owner failed to prove lack of consent because the vehicle was for all practical purposes the son’s car, she exercised no control over who drove it, and the son’s conduct (instruction, leaving keys accessible and prior use by the driver) established implied consent through him to the respondent driver; therefore the s.105(1) exception did not apply and owner remained liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs