On the face of it, it’s hard to see how Inga Richardson could have any realistic chance of succeeding in her action against Joey Sanayhie.
The pair were living together as common law spouses when Richardson jumped out of a car Sanayhie was driving down an Oshawa, Ont., road after they left a party.
During the event, Richardson had drank “copious amounts of alcohol,” according to a recent court ruling, and became agitated as the two fought while on the way home.
At one point, she vowed to jump out of the car, a threat she eventually carried out that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
Richardson is now suing Sanayhie for breaching a duty of care and negligence for allegedly having failed to slow the vehicle down or bring it to a stop once she had issued the threat. She also claimed he had failed, in his duties as designated driver, to monitor her drinking at the party.
Thankfully, common sense has prevailed so far. In a recent ruling, Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba struck those parts of the claim dealing with Sanayhie’s duties as designated driver.
Noting Sanayhie didn’t invite his partner to take the risk, that there was no paternalistic relationship of supervision and control between the two, and that Sanayhie wasn’t offering a service to the public that led to Richardson’s drinking, Belobaba ruled he had no duty to monitor her drinking.
“There is no evidence of any specific discussion or agreement wherein Joey promised to do so,” Belobaba wrote. “Absent such agreement, Joey was under no obligation to monitor and limit Inga’s alcohol consumption.”
Moreover, the judge said public policy considerations weighed against holding designated drivers responsible for their passengers’ sobriety, particularly since doing so would create a major disincentive for people to take their drunk friends home.
The ruling, however, leaves Richardson’s remaining claims intact. Given that she jumped out of the car, her case appears to have little chance of success.
The notion that she should bear no responsibility for doing something so obviously harmful to herself is incredulous, particularly since it would pass the onus onto Sanayhie.
But, of course, the full facts of the case have yet to come out at trial. Could Richardson argue, for example, that Sanayhie was the aggressor in the argument and that she therefore felt threatened and had to get out?
At the same time, does the fact that, according to reports, she had once jumped out of a boat in similar circumstances create some obligation on Sanayhie to take precautions?
In purely logical terms, it seems reasonable to argue that a driver dealing with a passenger gunning to jump out might want to slow down.
But legally speaking, it’s hard to see how a driver could incur an obligation to do so except in very exceptional circumstances, such as cases where a passenger feels threatened.
It will be interesting, then, to see how Richardson v. Sanayhie plays out. It’s definitely a case to watch.
- Glenn Kauth
The pair were living together as common law spouses when Richardson jumped out of a car Sanayhie was driving down an Oshawa, Ont., road after they left a party.
During the event, Richardson had drank “copious amounts of alcohol,” according to a recent court ruling, and became agitated as the two fought while on the way home.
At one point, she vowed to jump out of the car, a threat she eventually carried out that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
Richardson is now suing Sanayhie for breaching a duty of care and negligence for allegedly having failed to slow the vehicle down or bring it to a stop once she had issued the threat. She also claimed he had failed, in his duties as designated driver, to monitor her drinking at the party.
Thankfully, common sense has prevailed so far. In a recent ruling, Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba struck those parts of the claim dealing with Sanayhie’s duties as designated driver.
Noting Sanayhie didn’t invite his partner to take the risk, that there was no paternalistic relationship of supervision and control between the two, and that Sanayhie wasn’t offering a service to the public that led to Richardson’s drinking, Belobaba ruled he had no duty to monitor her drinking.
“There is no evidence of any specific discussion or agreement wherein Joey promised to do so,” Belobaba wrote. “Absent such agreement, Joey was under no obligation to monitor and limit Inga’s alcohol consumption.”
Moreover, the judge said public policy considerations weighed against holding designated drivers responsible for their passengers’ sobriety, particularly since doing so would create a major disincentive for people to take their drunk friends home.
The ruling, however, leaves Richardson’s remaining claims intact. Given that she jumped out of the car, her case appears to have little chance of success.
The notion that she should bear no responsibility for doing something so obviously harmful to herself is incredulous, particularly since it would pass the onus onto Sanayhie.
But, of course, the full facts of the case have yet to come out at trial. Could Richardson argue, for example, that Sanayhie was the aggressor in the argument and that she therefore felt threatened and had to get out?
At the same time, does the fact that, according to reports, she had once jumped out of a boat in similar circumstances create some obligation on Sanayhie to take precautions?
In purely logical terms, it seems reasonable to argue that a driver dealing with a passenger gunning to jump out might want to slow down.
But legally speaking, it’s hard to see how a driver could incur an obligation to do so except in very exceptional circumstances, such as cases where a passenger feels threatened.
It will be interesting, then, to see how Richardson v. Sanayhie plays out. It’s definitely a case to watch.
- Glenn Kauth
