Brian Cameron

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a rental vehicle leased by the defendant lessee but driven by an unauthorized third party.

The sole issue at trial was whether the lessee had given express or implied consent to his friend to possess the vehicle, which would make the lessee vicariously liable under s. 192(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court rejected the lessee's evidence that he had flatly refused his friend's request to use the vehicle, finding his subsequent conduct inconsistent with a refusal.

The court concluded that the presumption of consent was not rebutted and held the lessee vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a costs award following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge had added notional pre-judgment interest to the jury's general damages award before applying the statutory deductible, which resulted in the plaintiff beating the defendant's offer to settle and triggering the costs consequences of Rule 49.10.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that notional pre-judgment interest should be added to the general damages award for the purpose of determining whether a judgment is more favourable than an offer to settle.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's holistic consideration of the offers to settle under Rule 49.13.