The defendant vehicle owner moved for summary judgment to determine whether her automobile insurer or the plaintiff's insurer was responsible for payment of a settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The vehicle had been purchased by the moving party for her son, who was unlicensed, and left entirely in his possession and control.
The court found that the moving party gave express consent to possession and implied consent to operate the vehicle on the highway, as it was objectively and subjectively foreseeable that her son would drive it despite any prohibition.
Any driving prohibition was ineffective and unenforced.
The moving party was found vicariously liable under s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act, and her insurer was ordered to pay the settlement.
