The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's refusal to dismiss the plaintiff's action against the owner of an all-terrain vehicle.
The driver had been given permission to drive the vehicle on farm property but drove it on a highway, resulting in an accident that injured the plaintiff passenger.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the owner was vicariously liable under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act because he consented to the driver's possession of the vehicle.
In doing so, a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal explicitly overruled its prior decision in Newman v. Terdik, affirming that an owner who consents to possession remains vicariously liable even if the driver breaches a condition restricting the vehicle's operation.
