Yes No Share to Facebook
Negligent Entrustment Principles
The Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: If an Ontario owner lets an untrained person use a car, boat, or gun and someone is injured, can the owner be sued?
Answer: White Owl Legal can help you understand negligent entrustment in Ontario, where an owner or person in control of a dangerous object may face a lawsuit if they unreasonably allowed an underage, inexperienced, or reckless person to use the object and that person’s negligence proximately caused the injury to someone else. Key elements typically include an entrustment of the chattel, the entrustee’s incompetence or recklessness, what the entrustor knew or ought to have known, creation of an appreciable risk of harm with a resulting duty of care, and that the entrustee’s negligence was the legal cause of the damages, as discussed in Persaud v. Bratanov, 2012 ONSC 5232. For a practical case review with a paralegal at White Owl Legal, call (289) 839-3075.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Can a Parent Be Sued For Allowing a Child and Friend to Use a Snowmobile or Other Motorized Vehicle If Injuries Result?
The Owner of An Object May Be Liable For Allowing a Friend to Use the Object If the Friend Is Unqualified to Use the Object and the Friend Accidentally Injures Another Person.
Note: Please contact White Owl Legal by phone at: (289) 839-3075 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
Understanding Negligent Entrustment Principles Involving Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
In the circumstances where a person who owns, possesses, or controls, a potentially dangerous object, such a person may be held legally liable for the tort of negligent entrustment where such a person unreasonably permits another person to use or operate the potentially dangerous object and an incident occurs resulting in harm to a third party person.
The Law
The tort of negligent entrustment was well explained in the case of Persaud v. Bratanov, et al, 2012 ONSC 5232, wherein it was said:
[41] Allegations of negligent entrustment have two broad components, namely: (1) proof that the entruster was negligent in entrusting what later became the instrumentality of the damages to the entrustee; and (2) proof that the entrustee was negligent in his or her use of the instrumentality in causing the damages suffered by the plaintiff. See: Unger v. Unger (2003), 2003 CanLII 57446 (ON CA), 68 O.R. (3d) 257 (C.A.) at para. 25-27; Perkull v. Gilbert, 1993 CanLII 583 (BC SC), [1993] B.C.J. No. 1078 (S.C.) at para. 14. The rationale is that when someone supplies a chattel to another, whom the supplier knows or has reason to know is likely, as a result of his or her youth, inexperience or recklessness, to use the chattel in a manner involving an unreasonable risk of harm to others, that supplier should be liable for the harm caused by the negligence of the person entrusted with the chattel. See: Schulz v. Leeside Developments Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1976 (BC CA), [1978] B.C.J. No. 1319 (C.A.) at para. 21.
[42] Cases of negligent entrustment usually arise, as in this case, out of the entrustment of an automobile. In such cases, the judicial authorities suggest that all of the following five elements must be established for liability:
(1) An entrustment of the chattel by its owner to the entrustee;
(2) The entrustee was incompetent, inexperienced or reckless;
(3) The entruster knew or ought to have known of the entrustee’s condition or proclivities;
(4) The entrustment created an appreciable risk of harm to the plaintiff and a coincident relational duty of care on the part of the defendant/entruster; and
(5) The entrustee’s negligence was the proximate or legal cause of the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
As per the Persaud case, negligent entrustment, generally, involves the provision of an automobile or another type of potentially dangerous object such as a snowmobile (see: Perkull v. Gilbert, 1993 CanLII 583, School Division of Assiniboine South No. 3 v. Hoffer et al., 1970 CanLII 882, a watercraft (see: Schulz v. Leeside Developments Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1976; (liability unfound), a farm implement, a gun, a firework, among other things, that are entrusted to an underage person or an unqualified person.
It should take little foresight to appreciate that fireworks, being explosive, have a significant potential to cause harm by injury to persons or damage to property; and accordingly, fireworks in the hands of underage users or otherwise irresponsible users are dangerous. In keeping with negligent entrustment principles, a parent who provides or allows a child to access and use fireworks may be found liable for injuries or damage arising from the use of the fireworks. This situation arose in the case of Tse v. Binns, 2014 ONSC 2091, wherein it was said:
[12] The liability of Joel Binns would be hard to contest. Based on the available evidence and the Statement of Claim, he caused the lit firecracker to strike Eugene Tse in the left eye. The only allegation, in the Statement of Claim, directed at Michael Binns is that he allowed his son to purchase fireworks, when he knew this was dangerous and failed to provide his son with proper warnings and education on how to safely and properly use them. In the absence of any evidence reflecting on Joel Binns, his relationship with his father, the communication between them and anyone suggesting that Michael Binns did not owe a duty of care to Eugene Tse, I am obliged to and do accept that Michael Binns shares in the liability of his son in respect of the injuries suffered by Eugene Tse.
Summary Comment
The tort of negligent entrustment involves liability upon an owner, or person in control, of a dangerous object that arises from the unreasonable permission granting use or operation of the dangerous object to an underage, unqualified, or otherwise irresponsible, person.
NOTE: A significant number of online searches for “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than just a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are essential to that function. White Owl Legal provides legal representation within its licensed mandate/scope, emphasising strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at securing effective and favourable resolutions for clients.
