Garage owner partly liable for car thief injury: Top court
By Sam Pazzano, Toronto Sun
First posted: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 06:58 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 07:40 PM EDT
Ontario’s highest court has sent a warning to garage owners: Lock up your cars or you might be liable for devastating injuries suffered by young car thieves who crash the vehicles.
The Ontario Court of Appeal found that a Bruce County garage is partly liable for a “catastrophic brain injury” a 15-year-old suffered when a car he helped steal from the business crashed in rural Ontario.
Rankin’s Garage & Sales and its owner, James Chad Rankin, were sued for negligence by the teen — known only as JJ. Earlier, a jury had found the business 37% liable and last week the appeals court dismissed Rankin’s appeal.
“Rankin’s garage was an inviting target for theft and joyriding, especially by minors. There was no evidence of any security measures designed to keep people off the property when the business was not open,” Justice Grant Huscroft wrote in a unanimous judgment. “The risk of theft was clear.
“It’s ... common sense that minors might harm themselves in joyriding, especially if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs.”
Huscroft noted that a vehicle was stolen from Rankin’s lot in Paisley years before this incident.
Car theft and mischief were rampant in Paisley, which is 130 kilometres northwest of Kitchener. Local police had a “Lock It or Lose It” program established in 2007 to combat the problem.
JJ was joyriding in a Toyota Camry — driven by his drunken, stoned and unlicensed pal, then 16 — on July 8, 2006, court heard. The Camry was unlocked with its keys inside at Rankin’s lot in Paisley.
The stolen car crashed en route to Walkerton, leaving the 15-year-old with a “catastrophic brain injury,” Huscroft said.
Rankin’s garage had a habit of leaving insecure cars with the keys inside, the judge added.
The appeals court upheld the jury’s ruling that Rankin was 37% liable for damages while the drunk young driver was 23% liable, and his mom — who supplied them with beer — was 30% liable. The passenger was 10% liable for joyriding with an impaired, unlicensed and inexperienced driver.
“It wasn’t onerous for the garage owner to secure his property and he should lock up those cars because of his obligation to the car owners,” winning appeals lawyer Jasmine Akbarali said. “There was a widespread problem of car theft and mischief in that community.”
The amount of the damages paid to the 15-year-old will be determined at a later hearing.
Rankin has 60 days to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
spazzano@postmedia.com
Garage owner partly liable for car thief injury: Top court | Ontario | News | To
Blaming the victim for thief's injury unfair
By Michele Mandel, Toronto Sun
First posted: Thursday, October 13, 2016 08:02 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, October 13, 2016 08:08 PM EDT
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.
mmandel@postmedia.com
Blaming the victim for thief's injury unfair | Mandel | Toronto & GTA | News | T
By Sam Pazzano, Toronto Sun
First posted: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 06:58 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 07:40 PM EDT
Ontario’s highest court has sent a warning to garage owners: Lock up your cars or you might be liable for devastating injuries suffered by young car thieves who crash the vehicles.
The Ontario Court of Appeal found that a Bruce County garage is partly liable for a “catastrophic brain injury” a 15-year-old suffered when a car he helped steal from the business crashed in rural Ontario.
Rankin’s Garage & Sales and its owner, James Chad Rankin, were sued for negligence by the teen — known only as JJ. Earlier, a jury had found the business 37% liable and last week the appeals court dismissed Rankin’s appeal.
“Rankin’s garage was an inviting target for theft and joyriding, especially by minors. There was no evidence of any security measures designed to keep people off the property when the business was not open,” Justice Grant Huscroft wrote in a unanimous judgment. “The risk of theft was clear.
“It’s ... common sense that minors might harm themselves in joyriding, especially if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs.”
Huscroft noted that a vehicle was stolen from Rankin’s lot in Paisley years before this incident.
Car theft and mischief were rampant in Paisley, which is 130 kilometres northwest of Kitchener. Local police had a “Lock It or Lose It” program established in 2007 to combat the problem.
JJ was joyriding in a Toyota Camry — driven by his drunken, stoned and unlicensed pal, then 16 — on July 8, 2006, court heard. The Camry was unlocked with its keys inside at Rankin’s lot in Paisley.
The stolen car crashed en route to Walkerton, leaving the 15-year-old with a “catastrophic brain injury,” Huscroft said.
Rankin’s garage had a habit of leaving insecure cars with the keys inside, the judge added.
The appeals court upheld the jury’s ruling that Rankin was 37% liable for damages while the drunk young driver was 23% liable, and his mom — who supplied them with beer — was 30% liable. The passenger was 10% liable for joyriding with an impaired, unlicensed and inexperienced driver.
“It wasn’t onerous for the garage owner to secure his property and he should lock up those cars because of his obligation to the car owners,” winning appeals lawyer Jasmine Akbarali said. “There was a widespread problem of car theft and mischief in that community.”
The amount of the damages paid to the 15-year-old will be determined at a later hearing.
Rankin has 60 days to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
spazzano@postmedia.com
Garage owner partly liable for car thief injury: Top court | Ontario | News | To
Blaming the victim for thief's injury unfair
By Michele Mandel, Toronto Sun
First posted: Thursday, October 13, 2016 08:02 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, October 13, 2016 08:08 PM EDT
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.
mmandel@postmedia.com
Blaming the victim for thief's injury unfair | Mandel | Toronto & GTA | News | T
