When may a Vehicle Owner not be held Liable for a Car Accident?

When you allow anyone to borrow your vehicle, you always run the risk that they may be involved in a car accident.  If the borrower of your vehicle is deemed responsible for causing the collision, you, as the owner of the vehicle, are liable for any damages and may be sued if someone is injured, including any passengers who were riding in your vehicle.  Even if no one was injured or killed, a vehicle owner typically needs to make a claim for statutory accident benefits against their own insurance company if there was property damage.   Certainly, car owners should always be very prudent whenever they contemplate lending their vehicle, as an accident may result not only in significant financial losses but also in stress and legal hassles for the owner.

Thorne v. Prets is the appeal of a civil suit arising after a passenger, Harvey Thorne, suffered serious back injuries requiring surgery, due to a car accident.  Mr. Thorne had borrowed the car with the owner’s (John Prets’) consent, and Mr. Prets was not present at the time of the accident.

The accident happened after two friends, Mr. Thorne and Mr. MacNeil, drove to a Milton tavern in Prets’ car. Mr. MacNeil asked whether he could drive but was refused by Thorne who knew that MacNeil was not licenced to drive. After spending some time in the tavern, Thorne went outside to the car which was parked in the tavern lot and sat in the passenger seat, and he apparently told MacNeil that he wanted to rest for a half hour to any hour before driving home. Mr. MacNeil went back into the tavern while his friend rested. The keys were put in the ignition so that Thorne could listen to the radio.  To his surprise, Thorne was awakened by a warning shout from MacNeil when the latter lost control of the vehicle and crashed, resulting in fatal injuries to MacNeil.

In a previous trial before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Mr. Thorne was awarded damages for his injuries. Mr. Thorne sued both the owner of the car, Mr. Prets, and the estate of Mr. MacNeil.  The estate of MacNeil appealed the decision that held him liable for the accident which resulted in his death.

The Superior Court trial judge was tasked with deciding on three key issues:

1. Who was the legal owner of the car.  This was an issue because Thorne was in the process of buying the vehicle from Prets around the date of the accident.
2. Given a lack of witnesses to the accident, who was actually the driver of the car?
3. Who was in legal possession of the vehicle when the accident occurred?

The court determined that Prets was the owner of the vehicle; MacNeil was driving; and Thorne was a passenger at the time of the accident. None of these findings were challenged on appeal.

Under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any losses or damage that may be sustained by persons due to negligence, during the operation of a motor vehicle, unless the vehicle was taken without the owner’s consent.  In Thorne v. Prets, liability depends on whether Thorne, who Prets had given unrestricted possession of the car, was ‘in possession’ of the car when the accident happened.  If so, then Prets and his insurer would be held liable; however, if Thorne was not in possession, then the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) would be responsible for payment of damages. MVACF is the ‘payor of last resort’ as when an accident was caused by an uninsured driver.

In this case, the trial judge concluded that MacNeil had neither Thorne’s nor Prets’ permission to drive the car.  In fact, Thorne was not only asleep when MacNeil drove, but he was also likely impaired by alcohol and may have been lacking the ability to drive the car or transfer possession to MacNeil.  Accordingly, the judge decided that Thorne was not ‘in possession’ of the car and further, neither Thorne or Prets were liable for the damages caused by MacNeil’s negligence.  The appeal judge agreed with this decision and found no legal grounds interfere with the original judgement.

Thorne v. Prets is an unusual case, in terms of finding the owner of the vehicle not liable for a car accident and injuries caused by the driver of his vehicle.  Much more common is a ruling, such as in Nemeth v. Yasin and Henwood v. Coburn, where the owner of the vehicles, in both cases, were held vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act s. 192, for example, by making their car keys available to be used by another person.   In Nemeth v. Yasin, a young man was clearly and expressly told by his father that he was no longer allowed to borrow his father’s car due to his bad driving record; however, when he nevertheless took the car to pick up his mother and was involved in a car accident, his father, the owner of the car, was held liable for any damages.

If you or a family member were injured in a motor vehicle accident and you are considering making a claim for damages against the 'at fault' driver, call a respected Milton car accident lawyer to learn about your legal right to compensation.  We can review the facts of your case and frankly explain your options for obtaining owed compensation.  The initial consultation is free and gives you an excellent opportunity to have your questions answered with no obligation to proceed further.