Yes No Share to Facebook
Negligent Entrustment Principles
The Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
Last Updated: August 23 2026
Question: If someone allows an untrained friend to operate equipment in Ontario and an accident happens, can both the person who allowed the use and the user be sued?
Answer: In Ontario, a person who allows another person to use or operate a potentially dangerous object can face liability for injuries to a third party under negligent entrustment, if the entrustor was negligent in providing access when they knew or ought to have known the other person was inexperienced, unqualified, reckless, or otherwise likely to misuse the equipment, and the user’s negligence was a proximate cause of the harm; cases like Persaud v. Bratanov, 2012 ONSC 5232 explain the required components, including entrustment, incompetence, knowledge, an appreciable risk created by the entrustment, and causation. If you’re dealing with an accident claim and need a paralegal-led review of potential defendants and liability risk in Ontario, DK Legal Practice can help you understand your options, gather key facts, and plan next steps; call (416) 906-6663 today.
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 DK Legal Practice by phone at: (416) 906-6663 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 stated in the Persaud case, negligent entrustment cases usually involve an automobile or another type of dangerous machinery 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 boat (see: Schulz v. Leeside Developments Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1976; (liability unfound), a farm implement, a gun, a firework, among other things, being entrusted to an underage or an unqualified operator.
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 is what precisely happened in the matter of of Tse v. Binns, 2014 ONSC 2091, wherein it was stated:
[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 large volume of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a pressing need for effective legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Key components of their role include advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise. DK Legal Practice provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic alignment, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing swift and positive outcomes for clients.