If I get drunk and stoned, steal your car, and almost kill someone..it's YOUR fault!!

[billh1963]

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

[Rinty]

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.

[wdfifteen]

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

[john70t]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

Like it or not, the law of the land is this:

“It is well established that the duty of care operates independently of the illegal or immoral conduct of an injured party.”

and that is not about to change. Lock your car, don't leave dangerous construction sites unfenced and unmarked, and don't leave loaded weapons unattended on your porch and you will be fine.

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.

[Jeff Higgins]

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.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by john70t

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.

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.

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

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

[2porscheguy]

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?

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

Appeal?

There is no mention of any 'victims', it appears the thief had a one car accident. If there were 'victims' they would also be suing the garage and the decision would help them, not hurt them. The garage's insurance company will be funding the appeal.

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?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

So I guess if my iPod is stolen from my car and the dipwad goes into an epiliptic fit once he hears my 60-90s head anging music...it's my fault? Kill me now....after I pee on Sammy's lawn.

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

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by JD159

Complex issue. Those who think this is a black or white issue are grossly oversimplifying legal frameworks.

The situation sounds crazy, but there is logic behind the arguments.

What if the two idiots stumbled onto his property (a property in which he took no measures to enforce) and fell through a 10ft pit he was digging. Yes, they were trespassing, but the guy did not secure his work area.

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.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

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

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.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by 2porscheguy

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?

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

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.

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!!

[JD159]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

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.

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.

[1990C4S]

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.

[wildthing]

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

[Rikao4]

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

[Spud]

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.

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.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Spud

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.

[masraum]

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.