In Taylor v. Roseville Toyota, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 994, a car detailer, who had been working for a car dealership, got keys from the dealership's key attendant. He used a car for a personal errand and caused an accident. The dealership had a system for controlling access to its vehicles by controlling its keys through an attendant. Because the driver believed the attendant could grant permission for personal use, the Taylor court concluded there was implied permission from the owner. (Id. at pp. 996-998, 1005-1006.) The court found the owner's failure to monitor a factor to be considered in determining permission. (Id. at p. 1004.) The Court upheld a jury instruction which stated, "Express permission is a specified authorization to use a vehicle owned by another. Implied permission can be inferred from the relationship of the parties or the circumstances of a particular use. In determining [implied permission], factors that you may consider include; (1) If the owner was the employer of the operator; (2) If there may have been a custom or practice of allowing employees to use company owned vehicles; (3) If the owner . . . failed to monitor or supervise the use(s) of its vehicle(s)." (Id. at p. 1001.) Whether an employer has given an employee implied permission to use a vehicle is to be determined based on all the circumstances and reasonable inferences. (Taylor, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1004.)