Having many vehicles did not necessarily create risk of personal injury

Supreme court | Torts | Negligence | Duty and standard of care

Plaintiff J and his friend, who were teenagers, stole car from defendant R’s commercial car garage and went joyriding. At car garage, car had been left unlocked on unsecured lot with keys in ashtray. Witnesses testified R had practice of leaving cars unlocked with keys in them and it was known that vehicle theft in area was common. J was passenger in car driven by his friend, who had been drinking, and did not have driver’s licence and had never driven car. Car crashed and J suffered catastrophic brain injury. Jury found R was negligent and J was contributorily negligent and R unsuccessfully appealed trial court decision. Appeals court found that R had care and control of many vehicles for commercial purposes, and with that came responsibility of securing them against minors, in whose hands they were potentially dangerous, and it was also found that R’s garage was easily accessible by anyone and risk of theft was clear. R appealed. Appeal allowed. It was found that evidentiary basis was required before court could conclude that risk of theft included risk of theft by minors, and there was no such evidence in this case. There was no evidence that J or his friend were targeting R’s garage in particular, as they were looking all over town for unlocked cars and court of appeal relied on speculation to connect risk of theft to risk of personal injury, which was inappropriate. Having many vehicles did not necessarily create risk of personal injury and while cars could be dangerous in case they were operated by someone who did not know how to drive, this risk could only realistically exist in certain circumstances. There were circumstances where courts recognized a specific duty of care owed to children, however, these duties were imposed based on relationship of care, supervision, and control, rather than age of child alone and such relationship did not exist here between garage owner and plaintiff.

Rankin (Rankin's Garage & Sales) v. J.J. (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 7370, 2018 CarswellOnt 7371, 2018 SCC 19, 2018 CSC 19, McLachlin C.J.C., Abella J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., Wagner J., Gascon J., Côté J., Brown J., and Rowe J. (S.C.C.); reversed (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 15069, 2016 ONCA 718, G.R. Strathy C.J.O., David Brown J.A., and Grant Huscroft J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

 

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Convocation adds CPD requirement to certified specialist program, will expand program to paralegals

Man loses almost entire inheritance in costs for 'reprehensible,' 'scorched earth' litigation

Ontario Court of Appeal allows Trial Lawyers Association to intervene in medical malpractice case

Ontario Court of Appeal denies extension to perfect appeal in a motor vehicle collision case

Court denies former bencher's request for civil trial data that would show extent of court delays

Ontario Court of Appeal allows wife to collect from husband's debtors through garnishment

Most Read Articles

Man loses almost entire inheritance in costs for 'reprehensible,' 'scorched earth' litigation

Court denies former bencher's request for civil trial data that would show extent of court delays

Ontario Court of Appeal allows wife to collect from husband's debtors through garnishment

Ontario Court of Appeal allows Trial Lawyers Association to intervene in medical malpractice case