Yes No Share to Facebook
Negligent Entrustment Principles
The Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
Last Updated: July 07 2026
Question: Can a parent be sued in Ontario for lending a risky toy to an underage child if another child gets hurt by improper use of the toy?
Answer: In Ontario, a parent (or anyone in care, custody, or control of the toy) can face liability under negligent entrustment if they unreasonably allowed an underage or otherwise unqualified child to use a potentially dangerous object and the child’s improper use foreseeably caused harm to someone else; courts generally look for an entrustment, that the child was inexperienced or reckless, that the parent knew or should have known of the risk, that the permission created an appreciable risk and a duty of care, and that the child’s negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries; a common example involves fireworks, where courts have accepted that failing to warn or educate a child about safe use can support shared liability if injuries result; if you need help assessing whether you might be liable or have a claim, Forseti Legal Services can help you understand your options and next steps with a clear paralegal-led review of facts and evidence; call (705) 806-7577 to get started.
Can a Parent Be Sued For Giving a Risky Toy to An Underage Child If Another Child Gets Hurt By Improper Use of the Toy?
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 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 volume of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signifies an urgent requirement for capable legal aid rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are vital to that function. Forseti Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing prompt and advantageous outcomes for clients.