“… the owner only becomes vicariously liable if the evidence established that he had in fact entrusted to another the performance of a duty or task which primarily is his own responsibility.” Per COKER, JSC in DUCLAUD V. GINOUX (1969) LCER-487(SC) (Pp 8 – 8 Paras C – D)

“In the case in hand there is no dispute that the wife had the general authority and consent of her husband to drive his car. That by itself is equivocal and the evidence in the case does not support any finding that the two women were on any mission in the purposes of which the…

“In Ormrod v. Crosville Motor Services Ltd. [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1120, the same question as to the liability of the owner of a motor car or other equipage for the negligence of a person to whom, for the time being, the chattel had been entrusted was raised. Denning L.J. (as he then was) at pp.…

“If a plaintiff relies on res ipsa loquitur as a basis for proving the negligence of a defendant then the primary facts of the occurrence having been accepted, as they were in this case, the burden shifts on to the defendant to establish a defence and, as in this case, to establish a defence of…

“… it is the duty of the Court to ascertain in every case what the actual purpose of a journey is in order to decide on the issue of vicarious liability.” Per COKER, JSC in DUCLAUD V. GINOUX (1969) LCER-487(SC) (P. 7, Paras D – E) https://lawcompasser.com/duclaud-v-ginoux/

“It was argued that to rely on the protection of the Act, one who claims the protection must have acted without malice. In other words, if the acts are done maliciously the Act will not afford protection. In the case Newell v. Starkie (1920) PC 89 L.J.R. 1, where a plea of malice was considered…