Main v. Cameron

Repeated use of an automobile by one who is not the owner with the owner’s knowledge of such use permits an inference that the owner had given consent, express or implied, to the other’s use of the automobile.

It is conceded here that there was no express consent, and no sufferance by Vorel of repeated use of the particular automobile (nor any other Vorel automobile) by Cameron.

Appellant cites four decisions to support the proposition that permission may be implied from circumstances which do not include prior repeated use of the automobile by the alleged permittee.

In the first three of the…