Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Canada Insurance Law Review

Updates on key developments in Canadian insurance law by a national team of experienced lawyers.

open menu close menu

Canada Insurance Law Review

  • Home
  • About us

Who is driving your vehicle? Vicarious liability for unidentified drivers

By Brian Catalano
December 16, 2020
  • Automobile
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Megaro v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia[1]  (Megaro). It is well-established law that vehicle owners are vicariously liable for individuals that they allow to operate their vehicles. However, an unusual set of facts recently led to a decision that a vehicle owner was liable for an accident caused by an unidentified driver in his vehicle.

Facts

The insured Defendant, Mr. Vanstone, drove himself and three friends, “Vish”, “Scott” and “Taylor”, to a nightclub in Vancouver, British Columbia. At the end of the night, Mr. Vanstone gave his car keys to Vish and left in a taxi. Mr. Vanstone’s car was later involved in a serious accident, injuring the Plaintiff, Mr. Megaro. The driver of Mr. Vanstone’s car fled the scene and was never identified.

At trial, the Judge determined that the unidentified driver of Mr. Vanstone’s vehicle was solely at fault for the accident. Mr. Megaro’s injuries were assessed at $1,546,081 and the trial Judge found Mr. Vanstone, as the owner of the vehicle, was vicariously liable under section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act.[2] ICBC appealed the trial Judge’s decision with respect to, among other issues, the finding of vicarious liability.

In a unanimous decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the trial Judge’s decision. In order to find a vehicle owner vicariously liable for an accident, the plaintiff must prove that the owner gave consent to the driver to operate the owner’s vehicle. Mr. Vanstone argued that he could not have given consent to the driver because the driver is unidentified. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

In assessing vicarious liability, consent can be either express or implied. Mr. Vanstone handed his keys to Vish, while in the presence of Scott and Taylor. The trial judge determined that either Vish, Scott or Taylor were the driver on a balance of probabilities and that Mr. Vanstone gave implied consent for any one of them to drive his vehicle. The test for implied consent comes from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Palsky v Humphrey.[3] Consent is implied whenever it is clear that had it been sought, it would have been granted as a matter of course. The trial judge determined that Mr. Vanstone was willing to allow any one of his friends to drive and would have given consent as a matter of course to any of them. Therefore, even though it is unclear who was driving, Mr. Vanstone had given implied consent to all of the possible drivers.

Further, evidence was adduced that Mr. Vanstone attempted to engineer a cover-up, by pressuring his girlfriend to lie and stating to another witness that the car was stolen. The trial judge drew an inference from Mr. Vanstone’s deception that supported the finding that he had either given express or implied consent to the driver. The Court of Appeal confirmed that this defensive deception entitled the trial judge to draw a negative inference against Mr. Vanstone.

Takeaways

Vehicle owners can takeaway three lessons from the Megaro decision. First, it is well-established law that vehicle owners are vicariously liable for accidents caused by drivers that they permit to operate their vehicles. Second, vehicle owners will be vicariously liable, even when the driver’s identity is unknown, if the vehicle owner gave consent to all of the possible drivers. Finally, always be truthful if you are involved in an accident. Attempting to cover-up an accident through deception may result in a negative inference being drawn against you with respect to your guilt and culpability.


[1] Megaro v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 273.

[2] Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318; The Alberta equivalent of this section is the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6 at s 187(2).

[3] Palsky v Humphrey, [1964] SCR 580, 45 DLR (2d) 655.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Accident, At Fault, Court of Appeal, Implied Consent, Insurance, Vicarious Liability
Brian Catalano

About Brian Catalano

Brian Catalano is an associate in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution group in Edmonton. He maintains a general litigation practice and has direct experience assisting clients with a variety of matters, including questionings, applications and settlement negotiations. Brian also has experience developing strategy and argument relating to breach of contract, breach of confidence, shares and assets valuations, contractual interpretation, fraud, privity of contact and various types of liens.

Prior to joining the Edmonton office, Brian worked as a summer associate and articling student at Dentons’ Calgary office.

Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Automobile
  • Coverage
  • General
  • Insurance
  • Tort Liability

When does auto insurance cover injuries related to the use and operation of a motor vehicle – and when does it not?

By Pablo Retamozo
  • Automobile

Alberta Court’s application of a “priority flip” mechanism to a “loaner vehicle” from a dealership

By Lovin Narula
  • Automobile
  • Coverage

Sole proprietors and entitlement to Section B loss of income disability benefits in Alberta: the important distinction between profit and revenue

By Robert Gilroy

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Automobile
  • Construction and Design
  • Coverage
  • D&O and E&O Insurance
  • Environmental
  • General
  • Insurance
  • Insurance regulatory
  • Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Misc.
  • Securities/Class Actions
  • Tort Liability
Dentons logo white

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site