Pay for a hit on JJ....duty of care ends

From the article, it appears that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal. Appeals to the court are not granted automatically. A party must apply for leave, which is done in writing in almost all cases.

The court only hears about 80 cases a year, out of the hundreds that are submitted to it, for leave.

I'd say an unlocked car with the keys inside would fall under the attractive nuisance doctrine. But I'm no lawyer.

And automakers should make un-stealable cars.
And women should wear a chastity belt so they don't get grabbed by the p****.
And hopping someone's fence, jumping in their car, and driving off their property isn't considered "theft" anymore.

I could see the "duty of care" clause applying if someone negligently or stupidly injured themselves due to your lack of safeguarding. I just cannot see where it can be made to apply if someone intentionally enters your property to break the law or, in this case, gets injured because they stole your property. Once the injured party has broken the law on or with your property, you should have no liability for their or anyone else's resultant injuries.

A locked car would have been 'unstealable' to those two morons. An unlocked car without keys similarly so.

It does not appear anyone jumped a fence. Had here been a fence I suspect that the decision would have been different.

Driving off is still theft, what is debatable is who, besides the thief, is liable for any unpleasant outcomes.

JD159, I presume that you're a lawyer by profession and in good standing....I thank you for your input sir!:)

People entrusted with motor vehicles "must assure themselves that the youth in their community are not able to take possession of such dangerous objects".

Doesn't this imply all "dangerous objects"..rifles, pellet guns, hunting knifes, hunting bows, crossbows, slingshots, screwdrivers, power tools, hair dryers, motorcycles, etc, etc, etc?

AND furthermore isn't a motor vehicle considered a "dangerous object" whether it be rightfully owned by the youth or his/her family or be it stolen by said youth? Why are our "youth" entrusted to legally operate motor vehicles? Shouldn't they therefore be banned from operating motor vehicles until they become "adults"? .....you know....just to "protect" them?

The garage owner is the victim, people that stole the car are the perpetrators.

Amazing that was not adequately clear.

Locked car would be unstealable? You think they are too stupid to work a rock?

The only music on your Ipod is Andy Gibb, Leif Garrett, Abba, and Bay city rollers. :D

I'm going to have to call horse **** on this one.
It's nothing more than a lame argument created by lawyers to benefit lawyers and muddy the waters of common sense.

We are not talking about them falling in a hole or off a roof or having an accident. We are talking about them INTENTIONALLY and CONSCIOUSLY stealing a car. A car that they know does not belong to them. No excuses.


In a nutshell it is indicative what is wrong with the legal system and part of the reason why lawyers have such a bad rep.

It's only "debatable" to lawyers and the legal liability money machine they have created and have subsequently burdened the rest of us with. Any reasonable man would have no trouble seeing that the thief is 100% liable for any "unpleasant outcomes".

There is a problem with that, however, if one wishes to profit from these "unpleasant outcomes" - thieves usually don't have any money. They have no assets that the injured party can, with the help of an eager lawyer, come after.

Enter the unlucky property owner who was targeted by the thieves. He likely has some assets worth coming after - hence this senseless "complication" introduced by rat bastard scum sucking lawyers. To honest men, these situations are laughably simple. But we don't look to profit from others' suffering, either.

So we're in agreement then. :D

Haha, nope, I'll take that as a compliment though! I think :p

I'm just a millennial who studied philosophy (some philosophy of law), currently pursuing an MBA and passionate about technology.

Good discussion overall in this thread so it's been fun. :D

I would think that it does apply. Do you leave a loaded gun in your backyard? Knives lying around your house? Power tools plugged in? You could have your yard fenced off but if you leave a loaded gun back there, that would be hugely negligent. Or a new trap door system you were testing to catch zombies.

It would also be irresponsible to leave a jackhammer plugged in on your driveway. Some 14 year old kid could walk by, try to steal it (cuz kids need jackhammers), and hurt themselves. The key in this case is the YOUTH. Like 1990 said, if it was an adult this scenario would be playing out different.



As for operating a vehicle while not a legally an adult, you could say the same thing about legal age to drink (19 for Ontario).

The debate as to whether a 16.5 year old should be allowed to drive unaccompanied by an adult is a whole new can of worms. IMO, at this point, it isn't even worth having with self-driving cars coming to market sooner than most would like. I'd be much more concerned about figuring out how to deal with the legal **** storm that will create!!

What's the difference between this scenario and a construction site that has a bunch of heavy equipment with all the keys left or still plugged in??

Kids do stupid ****. Countless lives are saved because of the safety precautions implemented to prevent stupid people from doing stupid ****.

What's the difference between illegally trespassing and stealing a car?

Kids walk onto property with no fence, which is illegal, while drunk, to steal a piece of wood for a cool new fort they are building and accidently fall down zombie trap. Owner is AT LEAST partially responsible.

Kids walk onto property with no fence, which is illegal, while drunk, steal car because keys are left in, get hurt. Owner is AT LEAST partially responsible.

HOWEVER. If the owner had a fence and locked the cars, this wouldn't even be in court. The legal system has all kinds of flaws, but there has to be some effort/precautions displayed by the business owner, even if what the kids were doing was both stupid and illegal.

The only victim is the guy that left his car at this garage. (Although it's not clear who owned the car).

Everyone else is a dumbass. Fortunately they didn't hit another car.

Wait I have 3 inherently dangerous objects in my garage? I will have to stop using them. Think of the children!

our gates are wide open..
and our Gov. doesn't have to accept responsibility for not securing the US..
but I need to lock my car..
pound sand...

Rika

Just wrong. There are a dozen ways to get into a "locked" car. By your absurd logic, even if I lock my car (with the keys in it) and the thief breaks in, steals, crashes, all he has to do is say the car was unlocked? Ridiculous.

Keep up with the coddling of the crims, and all you'll get is more crims.

Put up a fence around your business. And a gate so the cars can't just be driven off the lot at night.

Neither kid should get squat other than maybe a conviction or two on their record. Sorry little Timmy now has brain damage, but it's the parents problem, not the guy who's car they stole or the shop owners where the car was stolen.

So, now I have a fence, with a locked gate, the crim cuts off the lock and steals my car. Of course the crim will claim the gate was not locked :rolleyes:

Do you not see how, by trying so hard to blame the wrong person, you can never satisfy this equation? As soon as you can place the blame where it rightfully belongs, on the criminal, then we can stop with the ridiculous what if's.

I'm fairly certain that if the business had a fence and locked the car this wouldn't be on the news.

If you leave your keys in a car, and it gets stolen, and the insurance company that insures my car pays you for it, I am the victim.

Isn't the business owner only 30% responsible???

Why? Are you counting on the criminal kid to tell the truth about the fence being locked and the car being locked in our hypothetical scenario? See, all those arguments go away as soon as the criminal is held responsible for their actions. We don't have to worry about the shop owner did this, or the shop owner did that.

Nope. I'm counting on reasonable and visible efforts made to secure the property.

In addition, evidence was that the garage took no measures to keep people off the property when it was closed; there had been a previous auto theft from the lot; and joyriding in the area was common

What difference does it make? If it is more than 0%, he is on the hook. As the only one with a job or any assets, he is the one who pays. That is why they sued him, not because of any culpability or negligence on his part. Dumbass car thief who turned his buddy into a vegetable has nothing.

If they are claiming that he should have taken more care to secure the car that was stolen because they are deadly weapons, or something, does that mean the kid driving was charged with attempted murder of his friend, the rutabaga?

Until this ever changes..."“It is well established that the duty of care operates independently of the illegal or immoral conduct of an injured party.”...The decision makes complete sense within those parameters.

So the real argument is over that particular piece of legislation.

Do you not have car dealers up there? Because down here in sunny CA we have lots of car dealers, with thousands of cars on their lots, and typically no FENCES.. Really, you are struggling to blame this on anyone but the idiot kids, I just don't get that.

Because it isn't quite so simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

I worked at a dealership. At night, we locked the cars, closed the gate, and put the keys in the back room on the peg board. If you owned a dealership, where you have had cars stolen, would you really leave the keys in the cars unlocked with no gates??

From your wiki link:

Clearly there are differences between states, and between the US and Canada in this regard. Too bad for our northern friends.

Again, your latest argument, so I as a car dealer have 1000 cars on my lot, and one of them gets left unlocked with the keys in it, and I should lose my business for this?

I don't think so. But the law apparently does.

If you live in a high crime area, leave your car unlocked, phone, GPS and laptop sitting on the seat, and it's gone the next day.... it's not at all your fault?

In my book you're guilty of being a total dumb *ss.

YMMV SmileWavy

I wonder if this guy has something fishy going on with insurance and keeping his cars unlocked...

Why would he even do that??

I also don't understand the difference between trespassing and getting hurt, and trespassing, stealing and getting hurt - from a legal standpoint.

Just because you add theft shouldn't take liability away from the negligent property owner, if that owner was negligent.

Some of you guys are making me feel bad. I leave my DD outside with the key on the floor.
I never misplace my key that way. 30 plus years now.

Dave

Several years ago my nephew and his wife were living in some apartments. My nephew was washing and cleaning his car with the car's radio on. His wife called him to dinner. He went in to have diner.

Before they had finished eating, he got a phone call. It was the police. It seemed his car was involved in a fatal accident. He thought it was a prank call, but it wasn't.

He had left the keys in the car with the radio on when he went in to eat. The thief took his car. By the receipt found in the car he had driven to a convenience store and bought some girly magazines, cigarettes, and a six pack of beer. They noted that two of the beers were empty. The car had gone off the road on a curve and over an embankment rolling several times killing the driver.

They did not hold my nephew in any way responsible for the thief's actions, accident, and fatal injury. His insurance even replaced the car even though he had left it in an apartment parking lot with the windows down, keys in it, and radio blaring.

If you are liable because someone steals your vehicle, what keeps you from being liable if a crime is committed with ANY property you may own? What if someone ran into your yard, grabbed a decorative rock throwing it and fatally wounds another individual?

Yeah, this whole thing is ludicrous. It may very well be the law in Canada, but it is a very, very bad law. Talk about a slippery slope - if a court can decide what level of "duty of care" is required of a private citizen to avoid liability in the event of theft, all is truly lost.

How about the state's liability? Don't they also assume a "duty of care" to prevent theft of property that leads to "unpleasant outcomes"? The state "allowed" the theft by not fulfilling its "duty of care" to its law-abiding citizens.

It used to be so nice in the days at our old residence on a quiet lake. ALWAYS left the keys in a boats ignition. Done for any potential rescue emergency or drowning.

We've long moved from there and everything has changed, population, next generation bozo parents who don't teach respect, claim and uses neighbors land because the landowners might only be there for two months a year, etc.. To leave a key in a boat and if stolen would clearly put the owner in prison for life and estate taken over by some slick back city lawyer.

I think this is just the beginning and its going to get a lot worst. I have seen a little bit of the good old days, but I am afraid that's in our rear view mirrors now. Really sad