Just out of curiosity, anybody have any statistics for liability cases??? How many ppl actually sue? Or have we just perpetuated a myth based on cases that are largely an anomaly.

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.



The amount of the damages paid to the 15-year-old will be determined at a later hearing.

You can't see how that is insane, can you? He was just as much at fault as each of the kids who stole the car is how it works out.

This is more stupid than insane
Only if you live in Canada


How about in This case where an EMT got run over by a stolen ambulance. Does this mean that the EMT that got run over is responsible, because they did not take adequate care, so they have to sue themselves? Do they sue the owner of the ambulance company?

I can tell you what happens. Lawyer looks for who has the most money, they works an angle to sue them.

Quote:

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.

....

So everyone in the area seemed to know that this guy keeps the cars on the unlocked, and teens have used them for joyriding?

Seems irresponsible to leave them unlocked to me.

Didn't the McDonald's hot coffee suit happen in America??

You guys are crazy !!!

I can see the 37% being reduced, but it will not go to zero. Way too many stupid actions by the garage owner.

I hope the insurance company is backing him. His legal fees will be close to seven figures.

There are a lot of similarities 'should have, could have'...

Agreed.

You all may be thinking that these cases are the same,"How to make the world idiot-proof".
But IMO they are very different.

The McD's coffee suit was about "Buying a product and expecting to immediately use it safety". The coffee was knowingly served at scalding temperatures by corporate even after losing X amounts of lawsuits per year. There were probably injunctions or court orders involved with at least one of those against serving at those temperatures. There was also a known and immediate hazard to a person, actually "X billion customers served" society. The need for a safe product sold standardized in the millions daily.
Like a car that doesn't shut off or get stuck WOT.
Like a gun that doesn't explode into the users brainstem.
Like an escalator that doesn't suck a mother into gears.
Etc Etc.

But hey 99% of people jumped over that 12 foot sinkhole in the sidewalk so it's ok right.
And the remaining 1% of the above cases?
They were still engaged in lawful commerce which was agreed upon by both parties.

When criminals and lawful citizens have equal rights under the law, then the law invalidates itself.

The guy had a car stolen previously.
The police had an active campaign 'Lock it or lose it', i.e. the area is full of thieves. Take appropriate precautions.
The guy had a lock box for keys, he lied during the trial and said he used it. He didn't use it. But he knew he should have.
The guy was entrusted with customers cars. I expect my mechanic to secure my car at night, indoors, or locked.

Both incidents were foreseeable. It wasn't 'if' it was 'when'.

In the case if McDonald's the results were predictable, in the case of the car theft, no quite so much.

There would not be a vegetable if there was no trespassing or theft.
It's not that complicated.
The kid's misfortune was a direct result of a poor choice of crime.
The owner of the lot and car cannot be held responsible.

My mother left me in a running car when I was three, and I put it into gear. Clearly she had no part in my actions. Wrecked the car and a fence, BTW. Reversed down a hill.

FWIW, I think that leaving keys in a car in a crime ridden neighborhood is foolish and irresponsible, but not a criminal activity. However, when it comes to insurance settlements, I think that anyone committing such a foolish and irresponsible action should be found partly liable, and I hope that his insurance costs would reflect that.

BTW, IF you leave your pride and joy collector car in your unlocked garage, with the keys in it, I would suggest that you break down the door before you call the cops. I fully expect that if the insurance company found out your car was in an unlocked garage with the keys in it that you would find it tough collecting.

Takes a whole 6 seconds to get into most overhead doors with openers!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nDw8DOblGB8?rel=0&amp;showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You should perhaps familiarize yourself with the facts of that case. Go ahead and do so, then get back to us.

You should perhaps familiarize yourself with the facts of that case. Go ahead and do so, then get back to us.

You think that is remotely similar, really?

Ok let me see if I got this right. There's 3 classes of people here. Poor: the mother who was drinking beer with her underage son and his friend. Middle class: the auto shop owner who works a 9-5 job everyday has a customers who have jobs and also work 9-5 or later and can't get to the shop before he closes. So that they can get there cars back he hides the keys in the car for them. Now this shop owner he has insurance. Rich: the lawyer. This person only cares about money that's all he's here for. So he get this case to a liberal judge who awards 37% from the shop owner 30% from the mother and 13% from the kid who stole the car. Well the mother she has nothing may be on whatever the Canadian welfare is. Hurt kid is getting nothing from her. The thief...nothing coming from him either. So it's all coming from the shop owner. 37% but now the lawyer he's in it for a third of the winnings. He's takin 33% from the shop owner. Hurt kids mom is getting 4% and its up to her to collect the other 43%.
Money is all coming from shop owners insurance. Who in the long run is paying for this? middle class. I would bet that 98% of cases like this never make it to court. The insurance companies settle out of court so they don't have to pay court fees. Winners...Lawyers. Losers middle class who insurance goes up and taxes go up.

Do you really want to leave you car at a shop where the owner routinely leaves the keys in the car ? Are you saying that there is no way to possibly foresee the consequences ?

You forgot the guy who owns the car. I'm sure he doesn't mind that the keys were left in it, and he has nothing to drive. And which insurance company should pay him ?
When you figure that one out, extrapolate from there.

How about you answer my question first, maybe a follow up too. Who was responsible in that case, your mother, who was responsible for you, the minor child, is what I suspect. Did she give you a bunch of booze first?