ZR
10-13-2016, 09:38 PM
TORONTO - It makes absolutely no sense.
A mother provides beer to her underage son. The unlicensed and drunk 16-year-old steals a car from Rankin’s Garage and in the ensuing joyride with his friend, crashes, and leaves his pal with a permanent brain injury.
So who’s most liable here? The mom who gave alcohol to her teen and then went to bed? The car thief who drove a stolen vehicle while drunk and high? Or the kid who helped steal the car and then was stupid enough to ride with his impaired friend who’d never driven before?
None of the above. According to Ontario’s top court, the one most at fault is the Bruce County garage owner because he left the key in the ashtray of the Toyota Camry and didn’t ensure his lot was protected. He owed the young thieves “a duty of care.”
“His business was an inviting target for theft and joyriding, especially by minors. The risk was real and knowable, yet there was virtually no security in place at Rankin’s Garage,” wrote Justice Grant Huscroft on behalf of the three-judge panel.
“It was foreseeable that minors might take a car from Rankin’s Garage that was made easily available to them,” he wrote. “It is a matter of common sense that minors might harm themselves in joyriding, especially if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a jury decision that found Rankin’s Garage 37% liable for any damages awarded to the injured teen, identified only as J.J. The mom of the drunken car thief is 30% responsible for providing the alcohol and not supervising her child, the thief himself is liable for 23%, and the injured passenger assumes only 10% liability.
How is it that the victim here — the owner whose car lot was robbed — is held responsible at all and, even more egregious, more accountable than anyone else?
On July 8, 2006, J.J., then 15, met with the car thief, C.C., and another boy, T.T., at the dam in Paisley, a village 130 km northwest of Kitchener. J.J. abstained while the other two shared eight beers.
The three boys then walked to C.C.’s house around 8:30 p.m., where C.C. and T.T. continued drinking — C.C.’s mom had bought them a case of beer. The mother went to bed before 11 p.m. and left them unsupervised. C.C. found a bottle of vodka and the boys drank it mixed with orange juice. The three shared a single marijuana cigarette.
After T.T. went home, C.C. and J.J. left to see what they could steal from unlocked cars.
They hit the jackpot at Rankin’s Garage when they found the Camry with its key in the ashtray. They got in and headed to Walkerton — with C.C. behind the wheel and J.J. in the passenger seat.
In the ensuing crash, J.J. was left with a catastrophic brain injury. He sued Rankin’s Garage, the driver and the driver’s mother for negligence — and a jury found them all liable.
In tossing his appeal last week, the court found garage owner Chad Rankin bears the highest responsibility because he should have known that his practice of leaving cars unlocked on his lot with the keys inside was an open invitation to teenaged car thieves. With damages still to be determined in a later hearing, his 37% liability could mean the poor guy — and his insurance company — will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It seems terribly unfair.
How is it that the high court decided the onus was on the law-abiding owner to protect these little criminals from stealing his cars and going on a joyride while high and drunk? Shouldn’t wrongdoers be responsible for the damage they cause to themselves by their wrongdoing? And if anyone else should be held liable for these juvenile delinquents, shouldn’t it be their parents — not the man they robbed?
Rankin’s appeal lawyer, David C. Young, said he expects his client will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
A mother provides beer to her underage son. The unlicensed and drunk 16-year-old steals a car from Rankin’s Garage and in the ensuing joyride with his friend, crashes, and leaves his pal with a permanent brain injury.
So who’s most liable here? The mom who gave alcohol to her teen and then went to bed? The car thief who drove a stolen vehicle while drunk and high? Or the kid who helped steal the car and then was stupid enough to ride with his impaired friend who’d never driven before?
None of the above. According to Ontario’s top court, the one most at fault is the Bruce County garage owner because he left the key in the ashtray of the Toyota Camry and didn’t ensure his lot was protected. He owed the young thieves “a duty of care.”
“His business was an inviting target for theft and joyriding, especially by minors. The risk was real and knowable, yet there was virtually no security in place at Rankin’s Garage,” wrote Justice Grant Huscroft on behalf of the three-judge panel.
“It was foreseeable that minors might take a car from Rankin’s Garage that was made easily available to them,” he wrote. “It is a matter of common sense that minors might harm themselves in joyriding, especially if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a jury decision that found Rankin’s Garage 37% liable for any damages awarded to the injured teen, identified only as J.J. The mom of the drunken car thief is 30% responsible for providing the alcohol and not supervising her child, the thief himself is liable for 23%, and the injured passenger assumes only 10% liability.
How is it that the victim here — the owner whose car lot was robbed — is held responsible at all and, even more egregious, more accountable than anyone else?
On July 8, 2006, J.J., then 15, met with the car thief, C.C., and another boy, T.T., at the dam in Paisley, a village 130 km northwest of Kitchener. J.J. abstained while the other two shared eight beers.
The three boys then walked to C.C.’s house around 8:30 p.m., where C.C. and T.T. continued drinking — C.C.’s mom had bought them a case of beer. The mother went to bed before 11 p.m. and left them unsupervised. C.C. found a bottle of vodka and the boys drank it mixed with orange juice. The three shared a single marijuana cigarette.
After T.T. went home, C.C. and J.J. left to see what they could steal from unlocked cars.
They hit the jackpot at Rankin’s Garage when they found the Camry with its key in the ashtray. They got in and headed to Walkerton — with C.C. behind the wheel and J.J. in the passenger seat.
In the ensuing crash, J.J. was left with a catastrophic brain injury. He sued Rankin’s Garage, the driver and the driver’s mother for negligence — and a jury found them all liable.
In tossing his appeal last week, the court found garage owner Chad Rankin bears the highest responsibility because he should have known that his practice of leaving cars unlocked on his lot with the keys inside was an open invitation to teenaged car thieves. With damages still to be determined in a later hearing, his 37% liability could mean the poor guy — and his insurance company — will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It seems terribly unfair.
How is it that the high court decided the onus was on the law-abiding owner to protect these little criminals from stealing his cars and going on a joyride while high and drunk? Shouldn’t wrongdoers be responsible for the damage they cause to themselves by their wrongdoing? And if anyone else should be held liable for these juvenile delinquents, shouldn’t it be their parents — not the man they robbed?
Rankin’s appeal lawyer, David C. Young, said he expects his client will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.