<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Motor Vehicle Accidents &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/motor-vehicle-accidents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 02:43:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Co-Owning a Car and Vicarious Liability</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/co-owning-a-car-and-vicarious-liability/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=co-owning-a-car-and-vicarious-liability</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/co-owning-a-car-and-vicarious-liability/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 22:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7558</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Mihail Salariu Consider this: Two owners of a vehicle. One held a policy of insurance. The other did not and was never a named insured or listed driver on the co-owner’s policy. The uninsured owner gives consent to a third party to drive the co-owned vehicle. The insured co-owner never had any discussions about [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/co-owning-a-car-and-vicarious-liability/">Co-Owning a Car and Vicarious Liability</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/co-owning-a-car-and-vicarious-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Right-of-Way Won’t Save You: Ontario Court Reinforces Duty of Care for Drivers</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-right-of-way-wont-save-you-ontario-court-reinforces-duty-of-care-for-drivers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-right-of-way-wont-save-you-ontario-court-reinforces-duty-of-care-for-drivers</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-right-of-way-wont-save-you-ontario-court-reinforces-duty-of-care-for-drivers/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 22:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7538</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jaaron Pullenayegem As McFee v. Sutram, 2025 ONSC 5526 shows, following the rules of the road doesn’t automatically mean a driver has met the standard of care or that he does not owe a duty of care to other vehicles that break the rules. The Ontario Superior Court’s decision is a sharp reminder that [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-right-of-way-wont-save-you-ontario-court-reinforces-duty-of-care-for-drivers/">The Right-of-Way Won’t Save You: Ontario Court Reinforces Duty of Care for Drivers</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-right-of-way-wont-save-you-ontario-court-reinforces-duty-of-care-for-drivers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Summary Judgment and the Agony of the Moment</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 22:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7190</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Riley Groskopf In Morales v. Laguardia, 2024 ONCA 869, affirming 2024 ONSC 1533, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion based on a no liability position taken in a motor vehicle accident. Justices MacPherson, Roberts and Wilson penned a strong endorsement of a finding that there was no genuine issue for [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment/">Summary Judgment and the Agony of the Moment</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-and-the-agony-of-the-moment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>CERB and CRB: Are they Deductible from an Income Loss Award?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cerb-and-crb-are-they-deductible-from-an-income-loss-award/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cerb-and-crb-are-they-deductible-from-an-income-loss-award</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cerb-and-crb-are-they-deductible-from-an-income-loss-award/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 09:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7097</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By: Katrina Taibi Overview: In Ferreira v. Hopper,[1] the Ontario Superior Court considered for the first time whether the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) can be deducted from an income loss award in the context of a motor vehicle accident. Background Facts: The plaintiff was injured in a motor [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/cerb-and-crb-are-they-deductible-from-an-income-loss-award/">CERB and CRB: Are they Deductible from an Income Loss Award?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cerb-and-crb-are-they-deductible-from-an-income-loss-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Expanded Approach to Vicarious Liability under the Highway Traffic Act</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/an-expanded-approach-to-vicarious-liability-under-the-highway-traffic-act/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=an-expanded-approach-to-vicarious-liability-under-the-highway-traffic-act</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/an-expanded-approach-to-vicarious-liability-under-the-highway-traffic-act/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:59:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6879</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Erin Crochetière The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently expanded the applicability of the vicarious liability provision outlined in s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act in Desrochers v. McGinnis, 2024 ONCA 63. The case involved an accident whereby the plaintiff, Megan, was operating an ATV on a dirt road when she lost control [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/an-expanded-approach-to-vicarious-liability-under-the-highway-traffic-act/">An Expanded Approach to Vicarious Liability under the Highway Traffic Act</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/an-expanded-approach-to-vicarious-liability-under-the-highway-traffic-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-94/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-94</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-94/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2022 23:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6256</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly Friday meeting, Katrina Taibi discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Diebold v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 5592. Overview This case involved a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion to determine whether the defendant, Economical Mutual Insurance Company, is entitled to a deduction for the settlement funds received by the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-94/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-94/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-91/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-91</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-91/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2022 21:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6212</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly Friday meeting, Taya Rosenberg discussed the Ontario Superior Court’s threshold motion decision in Kolapully v. TTC et al., 2022 ONSC 5473. Facts On March 6, 2012, Ms. Kolapully, the plaintiff, was crossing the road at a corner when she was struck by a turning TTC bus. Ms. Kolapully was taken to the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-91/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-91/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays With Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-88/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-88</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-88/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2022 19:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6172</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly Friday meeting, Nasra Esak discussed the Ontario Superior Court’s trial decision in Wabie v. Wilson, 2022 ONSC 4296. Overview The plaintiff, Ms. Waibe, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on August 20, 2014. She later commenced an action against the other driver, claiming damages for injuries to the neck, back, shoulder, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-88/">Fridays With Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-88/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is a Speed Test?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-is-a-speed-test/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-is-a-speed-test</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-is-a-speed-test/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2020 03:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4008</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A person who operates a motor vehicle is not permitted to engage in a “race” or a “speed test”.&#160;Doing so is a breach of a statutory condition in the standard Ontario Automobile Policy. In Vyas v. Brown, 2020 ONSC 4916, Justice O’Brien noted that the case law indicates that a “race” is a “contest involving [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-is-a-speed-test/">What is a Speed Test?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-is-a-speed-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Emily Vereshchak in The Lawyer&#8217;s Daily</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/emily-vereshchak-lawyers-daily/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=emily-vereshchak-lawyers-daily</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/emily-vereshchak-lawyers-daily/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2020 03:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motor Vehicle Accidents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=3860</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Emily Vereshchak was recently featured in a two-part series in The Lawyer’s Daily on joint liability and subrogation under the OPCF 44R. Both parts can be found here: Part 1 Part 2</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/emily-vereshchak-lawyers-daily/">Emily Vereshchak in The Lawyer&#8217;s Daily</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/emily-vereshchak-lawyers-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
