Should people with auto insurance be excluded from juries in car crash trials? OTLA Director Kris Bonn argues that jurors familiar with car insurance might decide to reduce the victim’s award, in order to keep premiums from becoming more expensive. How is that fair to Ontario’s vulnerable and injured?
In order to determine whether a driver of a vehicle has the implied consent of the owner of the vehicle to drive it, the court has to ascertain what he or she actually did under the circumstances, not what he or she would have done under different circumstances. The court cannot speculate on whether or not an owner would consent to allow a vehicle to be driven if the driver had requested the permission.
Watts is an illustrative case dealing with implied consent. Watts restates the current test for whether implied consent has been granted.
This decision concerns the relief from forfeiture provisions at ss. 129 of the Insurance Act and 98 of the Courts of Justice Act. The provisions were invoked because the plaintiff, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident with an unidentified driver, failed to comply with the reporting requirements in s. 3 of the Schedule attached to the Uninsured Automobile Coverage regulation under the Insurance Act (the “Schedule)”.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing the Plaintiff’s action pursuant to the unidentified driver provisions of the Plaintiff’s policy.
Motion by Plaintiff to determine whether OPCF 44R applied to her claim, in which case her insurer, TD would be required to respond. Companion motion by defendant Lombard, seeking to have cross-claim against it by TD dismissed on rounds of zero liability.
