5,484
edits
Difference between revisions of "Duties after a Motor Vehicle Collision (13:IV)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Duties after a Motor Vehicle Collision (13:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 17:13, 28 October 2016
, 17:13, 28 October 2016→B. For Damages
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) m (Desy moved page Vicarious Liability for Provincial Motor Vehicle Offences (13:IV) to Duties after a Motor Vehicle Collision (13:IV): 2016 revision) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) m (→B. For Damages) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Although the driver of a motor vehicle is primarily liable for damage caused by that motor vehicle, under MVA s 86, the owner (or lessor or lessee) will also be vicariously liable for damages caused by that motor vehicle if the driver had the owner’s express or implied consent to drive. If the driver lives with and is a member of the owner’s (or lessee’s) family, the driver is deemed to have the implied consent of the owner (or lessee). | Although the driver of a motor vehicle is primarily liable for damage caused by that motor vehicle, under MVA s 86, the owner (or lessor or lessee) will also be vicariously liable for damages caused by that motor vehicle if the driver had the owner’s express or implied consent to drive. If the driver lives with and is a member of the owner’s (or lessee’s) family, the driver is deemed to have the implied consent of the owner (or lessee). | ||
'''NOTE:''' It has been argued that the vicarious liability provisions of the MVA create a contractual master-servant relationship between owner and driver, an implied term of which is to drive with reasonable care and to indemnify for losses arising from any breach. However, the courts have held that this does not give an owner a right of indemnity (compensation) against a negligent driver who drives with the owner’s consent: ''Labentsoff v Smith'', [1969] BCJ No 455, 71 WWR 304 (BC Co Ct). The owner and driver are held to be joint tortfeasors. | :'''NOTE:''' It has been argued that the vicarious liability provisions of the MVA create a contractual master-servant relationship between owner and driver, an implied term of which is to drive with reasonable care and to indemnify for losses arising from any breach. However, the courts have held that this does not give an owner a right of indemnity (compensation) against a negligent driver who drives with the owner’s consent: ''Labentsoff v Smith'', [1969] BCJ No 455, 71 WWR 304 (BC Co Ct). The owner and driver are held to be joint tortfeasors. | ||
== C. For Offences == | == C. For Offences == | ||