Section 100.09. Proof of operating without permission.

 

(1)  A person operating a motor vehicle shall be presumed to have done so with the express or implied permission of the owner. Any owner contesting this presumption has the burden of proving the driver did not have permission to operate the vehicle.

(1m)  A person shall be presumed to own a vehicle if it is titled in the person's name. Ownership may be disputed and the presumption rebutted informally with the department or in a hearing under this chapter. The person in whose name a vehicle is titled shall have the burden of rebutting that presumption.

(2)  A person who operates a motor vehicle with the express permission of a person who has control of a motor vehicle has the implied consent of the owner to operate the vehicle.

(3)  Any affidavit, police report or statement of a person other than the owner contending the motor vehicle was parked or operated with the owner's permission shall result in an initial determination that the operator did have permission to operate the vehicle.

(4)  The owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident is exempt from depositing security under s. 344.14 (2) (g) , Stats., if the owner or the owner's insurer produces uncontroverted proof that the motor vehicle was operated or parked without actual or implied permission at the time of the accident. Acceptable proof shall be in one of the following forms:

(a) Written notice from the law enforcement agency where the offense occurred stating that the motor vehicle was reported stolen prior to the accident or that the law enforcement agency investigated the report and found it to be a stolen motor vehicle.

(b) Written notice from a district attorney that the owner has filed a complaint against the operator and that the operator is being charged with operating without the owner's consent or another crime indicating the operator's involvement in the theft of the motor vehicle.

(c) An affidavit signed by the operator stating that the motor vehicle was being operated without the owner's expressed or implied consent is filed with the department. This paragraph does not apply to an owner who is the sponsor of the operator, under s. 343.15 , Stats.

(5)  An affidavit, filed by an insurer under s. 344.15 (4) , Stats., that is signed by the owner and attests that the operator did not have permission to operate the motor vehicle at the time of the accident.

(6)  Any affidavit made under sub. (4) (c) or (5) with respect to a leased motor vehicle shall be made by the vehicle lessee rather than the vehicle owner, unless the vehicle owner affirms that possession and control over the vehicle had transferred from the lessee to the owner by repossession or other operation of law at the time of the accident.

Cr. Register, October, 1985, No. 358 , eff. 11-1-85; am. (1), Register, April, 1994, No. 460 , eff. 5-1-94; CR 01-156 : renum. (intro.) and (1) to be (4) (intro.) and (a), (2) to be (4) (b) and (c), (3) to be (5) and am. cr. (1), (2), (3) and (6) Register October 2005 No. 598 , eff. 11-1-05; CR 10-070 : am. (4) (intro.) Register November 2010 No. 659 , eff. 12-1-10.

Note

See State v. Kirch , 222 Wis. 2d 598 , 587 N.W.2d 919 (Ct. App. 1998); Young v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. , 2008 WI App 147 ; Kruse v. Weigand , 204 Wis. 195 (1931); Knutson v. Mueller , 68 Wis. 2d 199 (1974). Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Note: If A loans a vehicle to B, even with conditions or contractual obligations on that loan, such as not re-loaning the vehicle, and B loans the vehicle to C, C has A's implied consent to operate the vehicle notwithstanding the conditions or agreement between A and B. A's relinquishment of control of the vehicle to B makes A responsible for any accident in which B is involved or in which any person operating the vehicle with B's consent is involved. Plevin v. WisDOT , 267 Wis. 2d 281 (Ct. App. 2003). A is responsible for maintaining insurance on or covering damages caused by A's vehicle. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 This is an exclusive list of mechanisms that may be used for proving unauthorized operation of a vehicle. See Plevin v. WisDOT , 267 Wis. 2d 281 (Ct. App. 2003). Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 A lessee is considered an "owner" under s. 344.01 (2) (cm) . Because the lessee ordinarily has direct control of a leased vehicle, the lessee should ordinarily provide an affidavit under sub. (4) (c) or (5) rather than the lessor or titled owner. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1