The plaintiff alleges that Erbach drove the car so as to exhibit “wilful and wanton misconduct” and, therefore, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove such a state of mind: See Studer v. Cowper 1951 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1951] SCR 450, affirming 1950 CanLII 177 (SK CA), [1950] 1 WWR 780, where Kerwin, J. held at p. 455: “The term ‘wilful and wanton misconduct’ denotes something subjective on the part of the driver, whereas gross negligence may be found entirely apart from what the driver thought or intended.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.