Yes No Share to Facebook
Negligent Entrustment Principles
The Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
Last Updated: July 15 2026
Question: Can you sue the owner of a dangerous object in Ontario if they let an untrained person use it and someone gets injured?
Answer: ?
Answer: In Ontario, you may be able to sue the owner or person in control of a dangerous object through a negligent entrustment claim if you can show they unreasonably allowed someone untrained or unqualified to use it and that this created an appreciable risk of harm, then the untrained person’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries; for example, courts describe negligent entrustment as involving (1) an entrustment of the chattel, (2) incompetence or inexperience of the entrustee, (3) what the entruster knew or ought to have known, (4) a duty of care arising from the risky entrustment, and (5) causation between the entrustment and the damages, and these principles can apply to vehicles and other dangerous items like firearms or fireworks; if this happened in your situation, Cross Legal Services can help you understand the potential parties, evidence to gather, and the strongest next steps, call (289) 443-0675 to book a consultation with a paralegal serving communities across Ontario.
Can a Person Be Sued For Lending a Car to An Irresponsible Person?
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.
Understanding Negligent Entrustment Principles Involving Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
In a situation where the owner or person with the care, custody, or control, of a potentially dangerous object provides, lends, or otherwise allows, the use of the object by an underage, an untrained, or an unqualified, second person, the first person who allowed the second person to use the object may be held liable if an accident results in injuries to a third 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 significant quantity of online queries pertaining to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a necessity for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Cross Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at achieving efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.