Zigner said:
The OP did not "imply consent" for the niece to use the car. Now, had she left the keys on the table with a note saying "thanks for taking care of my dogs", then it could be believed that she was giving some sort of consent for the use of the vehicle, even though the matter wasn't directly addressed between the two parties. However, a 16 year old, unlicensed driver can reasonably be expected to know that she is NOT allowed to drive that vehicle since she is not legally allowed to drive ANY vehicle. What the niece did was a criminal act.
My response:
Your example is too narrow. That's not the only type of "implied consent." The "implication" was that the keys were available. The car was available. The aunt was out of town. The girl needed supplies for the purpose of watching the animals. It could "reasonably" be inferred, under the law, and under these circumstances, that the aunt gave this girl "consent" under these conditions.
First, everyone has a duty to use ordinary care in conducting activities from which harm might reasonably be anticipated. Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her
want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the other person has, willfully
or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself. Liability for negligent conduct is, therefore, the rule, to which no exception is made unless clearly supported by public policy considerations.
In addition to the general duty to use ordinary care, a person may have a duty to act affirmatively to warn
or protect others or to control the conduct of others, if a special relationship exists between the actor and either the person to be controlled or the person who needs protection.
To determine in a given case whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, the court must consider several factors, including the foreseeability of harm to the injured party, the degree of certainty that the injured party suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty on the defendant to exercise care with its resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and custom of obtaining insurance for the risk involved.
The most important of these considerations in establishing duty is
foreseeability. As a general principle, a defendant owes a duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his or her conduct, with respect to all risks which make that conduct unreasonably dangerous.
Because children are particularly vulnerable to certain misconduct and not fully able to protect themselves, a special relationship may arise between a child and an adult in situations in which the child is dependent on the adult, and that relationship will impose an affirmative duty on the adult to warn and protect the child.
It was foreseeable that the girl would take the keys, and use the car, if these items were available. Our writer had a duty to protect herself, the girl, and the public, by taking reasonable steps and precautions to make sure that the vehicle could NOT be used by the girl. Our writer failed in her duty.
IAAL
.