Law 12 Legal arguments

Rankin's Garage & Sales v JJ: Do You Owe a Duty of Care to Those Who Steal From Your Business?

Summary

Abusiness that leaves a car unlocked with the keys inside will not necessarily be responsible when someone is injured after the car is stolen, the Supreme Court has ruled. The business will only be responsible where it should have known both that the car could be stolen, and that someone could be injured due to it being driven unsafely.

Facts

While the seminal British tort law caseDonoghue v Stevensontook place in Paisley, Scotland, this particular case takes place in Paisley, Ontario. Three friends ("JJ," "CC" and "TT") between the ages of 15 and 16 were drinking vodka with juice while smoking marijuana. Late in the evening, the respondent JJ and his friend CC decided to go to Rankin's Garage, a car dealership located on a main intersection of the town and owned by appellant James Rankin.

The garage property was not secured. The boys walked around the lot, checking for unlocked cars, and eventually uncovered an unlocked Toyota Camry with its keys in the ashtray. They decided to go for a ride. CC was the driver and JJ was the passenger. While driving on a highway to a neighbouring town, CC was involved in a serious accident that resulted in a catastrophic brain injury to JJ. Through his litigation guardian, JJ sued Rankin's Garage for negligence, alleging that the business owed JJ a duty of care.

Judicial History

Superior Court

Before a jury trial, the Superior Court accepted JJ's argument that Rankin's Garage owed a prima facie duty of care to JJ and was therefore negligent. The basis for this argument was that people who were entrusted with possession of motor vehicles must assure themselves that the youth in the community are not able to take possession of such dangerous objects. Rankin's Garage was assessed to have 37% of the liability.

Ontario Court of Appeal

InJJ v CC,2016 ONCA 718,the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") upheld the trial court's decision that CC (and Rankin's Garage by contribution) was negligent, but rejected its assertion that a prima facie duty of care existed. Instead, the ONCA found that a duty of care arose only after applying the two-stepAnns-CooperTest,which is articulated by the SCC inCooper:

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: (1) was the harm that occurred the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act? and (2) are there reasons, notwithstanding the proximity between the parties established in the first part of this test, that tort liability should not be recognized here? The proximity analysis involved at the first stage of the Anns test focuses on factors arising from the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. These factors include questions of policy, in the broad sense of that word. Ifforeseeability andproximityare established at the first stage,a prima facie duty of care arises. (Cooper, para 30, emphasis added)

Through this lens, Justice Huscroft (writing for a unanimous bench) found that the harm suffered by JJ was a "reasonably foreseeable" consequence. On the issue of foreseeability, he found that it was "a matter of common sense" that minors might harm themselves while joyriding. On the issue of proximity, he found that proximity need not be established by whether or not the appellant knew JJ - it depended on whether the appellant should have had minors like JJ in mind when he considered security measures at Rankin's Garage. In Justice Huscroft's view, he should have.

Lastly, the court rejected policy arguments that tort liability should be negated due to the illegality of JJ's acts. This analysis was covered extensively by contributor Alice Panin her previous analysis of this case.

At the Supreme Court: Are Vehicles Like "Loaded Guns"?

Acknowledging that "this case can be resolved based on a straightforward application of existing tort law principles," the majority applied theAnns-Coopertest and came to the exact opposite conclusion arrived at by the ONCA: no duty of care was owed by Rankin's Garage to JJ.

In oral arguments before the SCC,a critical exchangetook place between counsel for Rankin's Garage and Justices Moldaver and McLachlin (from minutes 20:36 to 22:06 of the webcast). In this exchange, the justices affirmed that what needs to be "reasonably foreseeable" is not just the risk of theft, but rather that there is a risk of theft coupled with the possibility ofunsafe operationandpersonal injury.

This exchange takes a leading role in the majority's written reasons, which emphasizes:

Thus, in this context,it is not enough to determine simply whether the theft of the vehicle was reasonably foreseeable.

...............

The proper question to be asked in this context is whether the type of harm suffered personal injurywas reasonably foreseeableto someone in the position of the defendant when considering the security of the vehicles stored at the garage. (Rankin, para 26, emphasis added)

This passage also distinguishes the majority's conclusion from the Ontario Court of Appeal's. To Justice Huscroft, it was simply "common sense" that minors were no less likely to steal a car than any other individual. To the Supreme Court, however, this inferential line of reasoning was dismissed as too weak to carry the day (Rankin, para 45).

Case Summary from:

http://www.thecourt.ca/rankins-garage-sales-v-jj-do-you-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-those-who-steal-from-your-business/

SCC Case:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17085/index.do

Law 12

Rankin's Garage & Sales v JJ: Do You Owe a Duty of Care to Those Who Steal From Your Business?

Task:To create a legal argument for Rankin's Garage & Sales vs. J.J. The argument should discuss whether Rankin's Garage is negligent Or NOT negligent for leaving a car unlocked and the keys inside it? Your argument should be a couple pages in length and makes specific reference to the evidence/facts of the case, and elements of negligence. Your argument should discuss the following terms: negligence, duty of care, reasonable person, foreseeability, and causation.

How to Write your Argument:

1. Introduction:

• Name the Case. Since the case is a civil action, name the Plaintiff vs. name of the Defendant
• Staten the legal issue being challenged
• State the level of court you are dealing with and if it is an appeal case
• Provide your assertion

1. Body:

• Choose to write on 3 of following legal issues: negligence, duty of care, reasonable person, foreseeability, and causationshould be represented in individual paragraphs. Each paragraph should follow the formulaAssertion + Evidence + Reasoning = Argument
• Be sure to answer the question or explain the issue fully
• Use legal terminology so that you become familiar with the terms
• Give the legal principle which applies to the particular situation and give any other information which is relevant to the case

1. Legal Conclusion:

• Give a final decision on the legal issue and give your final reasoning
• Rule in favour of the plaintiff, why you rule this way and the remedies the plaintiff could expect
• Rule in favour of the defendant-all complaints would be dropped

Tips:

• You cannot write an effective legal argument in poor English. Clumsy or unclear expression will spoil your arguments, insights, and explanations.
  • Take as much care with your spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
• You should get into the habit of carefully proofreading your work.
• Good writing has many levels. In order to write well, you need to choose your words with care and write correct sentences in well-constructed paragraphs.
• Good legal writing and advocacy depends on presenting a well-structured argument.
• A good legal argument must be carefully organised and effectively presented.
  • Prepare carefully. Consider what point you want to get across before you start writing.
  • Give reasons. Do not simply summarise the views of others or offer unsupported opinions.
  • Aim for clarity and precision. Focus on getting your point across in an economical fashion.

Example:

How not to write a case.

The bow must pay because he shouldn't bash around displays. Although he is only six, this is not a crime therefor he must pay. Maybe the mother will have to pay cause she should have taken case of her kid and made sure he didn't run up and down.

\How to write a case.

Normally, a child regardless of age is liable for his own torts. However, in this case the moth was in the store at the time as the boy and on the basis of legal precedents already established the mother's presence would make her liable for the son's tort.