Yes No Share to Facebook
Negligent Entrustment Principles
The Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
Last Updated: July 04 2026
Question: Can a parent be sued in Ontario for giving a risky toy to an underage child if another child is hurt by improper use of the toy?
Answer: ?
Answer: In Ontario, a parent or any person who owns, possesses, or controls a potentially dangerous toy can face a negligent entrustment claim if they unreasonably allowed the child to have or use the toy in circumstances where the parent knew or ought to have known the child was underage, inexperienced, or likely to misuse it, and that misuse created an appreciable risk of harm to others that ultimately caused the injuries; courts explain negligent entrustment as having proof the entruster was negligent in entrusting the “chattel” and that the entrustee’s negligence was the proximate cause of the harm, for example in Persaud v. Bratanov, 2012 ONSC 5232. A lawyer & paralegal team at Olson Craig Legal can help you assess whether the facts support negligent entrustment, identify other potential defendants (such as guardians or providers who facilitated access), and guide next steps for a claim or defence across Ontario. Call (226) 886-2001 for a practical, Ontario-focused consult with Olson Craig Legal (lawyer & paralegals) so you can protect your rights and understand likely liability and evidence issues fast.
Can a Person Be Sued For Lending a Car to An Irresponsible Person?
Negligent Entrustment Involves the Unreasonable Providing of An Object, Such As An Automobile, Boat, Equipment, Gun, or Some Other Potentially Dangerous Thing, to a User That Is Unqualified or Untrained to Use the Object and Resulting In Harm to Another...
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 takes very little forethought to recognize and appreciate that fireworks, being explosive objects, present a significant risk of causing injury or causing damage; and accordingly, the law of negligent entrustment provides that a parent who allows a child to set off fireworks or provides a child with access to fireworks may be deemed liable if improper use of the fireworks causes injuries or damage to another person. 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 number of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a need for prompt, proficient legal assistance rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are crucial aspects of this role. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.