It shall be a valid defense to any action brought for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle for the owner of such vehicle to prove that the same was being driven or used without his knowledge or consent, express or implied, but the burden of proof thereof shall be on such owner.
§ 8.01-65.Defense of lack of consent of owner.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 7. Motor Vehicle Accidents · Last amended 1977 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-65 gives a vehicle owner a valid defense to a negligent-operation claim by proving the vehicle was being driven or used without the owner’s knowledge or consent, whether express or implied, and places the burden of proving that lack of consent on the owner.
Full Text of § 8.01-65
Plain-English Summary
Section 8.01-65 gives vehicle owners a defense against being held liable for driving they never authorized. In an action brought for negligent operation of a motor vehicle, the owner may defend by proving the vehicle was being driven or used without the owner’s knowledge or consent — whether that consent would have been express or merely implied.
The statute places the burden of proof squarely on the owner: it is up to the owner to establish the lack of knowledge or consent, rather than the plaintiff having to disprove it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a vehicle owner avoid liability if someone else was driving without permission?
Yes. Section 8.01-65 lets the owner defend a negligent-operation claim by proving the vehicle was being driven or used without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
Does the consent have to be in writing or spoken directly?
No. The statute covers both express and implied consent, so the owner must disprove both forms — an implied permission, inferred from the circumstances, defeats the defense just as an express one would.
Who has to prove whether the owner consented?
The owner does. The statute places the burden of proof on the owner to show the vehicle was used without knowledge or consent, rather than requiring the injured party to prove consent existed.
Why does this defense matter for owners who are not the driver?
Virginia law can otherwise hold an owner responsible for how a vehicle is used with the owner’s permission; this section lets the owner escape that exposure by proving the use was unauthorized.
Does this defense apply to every kind of negligence claim involving a vehicle?
It applies to actions brought for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, giving the owner a route to defeat liability tied to permission rather than to the driver’s conduct itself.
Amendment History
Code 1950, § 8-646.8; 1977, c. 617.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: lack of consent defense virginia motor vehicle8.01-65 virginia codeowner liability unauthorized driver virginiaimplied consent vehicle owner virginiaburden of proof vehicle owner consent