Category: Use and operation

Hunt v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 656

The plaintiff’s daughter, a minor, was injured in a car accident and sued him for negligent parenting. She alleged that he was negligent in permitting her to be transported in the motor vehicle of an impaired driver. The plaintiff’s insurer, the defendant, denied coverage on the basis that the alleged parental negligence complained of did not arise from use or operation of an automobile. The motion judge held that while the daughter’s injuries arose from the use of a vehicle, the plaintiff’s liability for her loss or damage did not. The Court of Appeal upheld this holding on appeal.

Hoang v. The Personal Insurance Co., 2017 ONSC 3649

In this case, Mr. Hoang dropped his two children, niece, and nephew (ages 6 to 13) off at an intersection in Toronto and planned to go find a place to park his car. The chilrden started across Yonge Street at a pedestrian crosswalk on the north side of Queens Quay. The three older children were walking in front and the Plaintiff was walking alone a few feet behind them. As the Plaintiff reached the middle of Yonge Street, a gust of wind blew his hat off of his head and the Plaintiff ran into the middle of the intersection. The Plaintiff was hit by a vehicle and sustained numerous injuries, including a severe brain injury. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $854,228.22 in damages and $899,750.00 in costs. The Defendant insurer argued that it was not liable to pay the damages awarded against Mr. Hoang because the Plaintiff’s injuries did not arise from the ownership or use or operation of an automobile. Justice Morgan held that the jury’s particularization of Mr. Hoang’s negligence included his use and operation of the motor vehicle (e.g. his poor choice of unloading area and poor driving) that caused the risk that caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. As such, the Defendant insurer was ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s damages.