The guy who owns the car will be covered by his insurance. His car was stolen that's a given. As I said earlier maybe the owner couldn't get there before the shop closed. You've never done this? Also as said in another post this has happened before. Cars or a car were taken before. The kids knew this that's why they went there. No? Owner said he should have put in lock box. Admitting he had a lock box. Maybe he didn't because he knew the owner was coming late. How many cars did the thieves go threw before they found keys? Is this intent? The only reason the kids aren't 100% response able is because Lawyers need to make money. They have to make the criminal not 100% respond able. No money in it if they don't. Insurance is where the easy money is. Remember we have at least one million Lawyers in this country. Probably close to a million in Canada. They have to make money. So they have liberal judges pass laws making the honest insured man (middle class) part response able.

The evidence at trial was that the property owner "routinely" left keys inside unlocked cars.

There is no evidence this was a one-off incident where the car owner did not pick up his car. There are lots of ways to leave keys for owners without making it so easy to take the car.


That's the reason for not leaving keys inside the car. He had a (singular) car stolen previously. Never-mind the thieves/tweekers in the area, he had an obligation to the car owner to secure the vehicle.




There are less than 100,000 lawyers in Canada.

Lawyers can create lawsuits, they can't force judges to make decisions in their favour. Judges simply apply the law. Judges in Canada are appointed, not elected. They are not appointed based on political leanings (generally).

If the jury and the judges erred then it can be fixed on appeal. While the article referred to is not well written, the decision has already been appealed once (provincially) and upheld. A federal appeal is next. Personally I don't think either judge erred, I believe only the percentage allocation is up for debate.

Obviously many disagree, but I have no problem living in a place where people have obligations to society as a whole.

Also in Canada if you launch a lawsuit and lose you have to pay all costs, court costs and the defendants legal bills, lost wages, etc.

Since the lawyer only gets paid if he wins and it's the lawyer who's on the hook to pay all costs if he loses we don't have a whole lot of frivolous lawsuits.
Lawyers here only take on slamdunk cases, unless the complainant is willing to pay all costs. And that's always money up front.

That's not quite correct. The 'winning' side asks the court for costs based their out of pocket costs, the extent to which the opposing side co-operated, and the reasonableness of any offers to settle.

Costs are then awarded by the presiding judge based on the above and cost request in comparison to the award.

The losing lawyer will (typically) have been paid by his client, and the losing client is on the hook for the cost order. Some lawyers will take a case on a contingency basis, many will not.

It is very rare for judges to order full cost reimbursement.

Yes but it gets spendy real fast. Not in this case but many lawsuits like personal injury is most often done on the basis that if they lose the lawyer is the one to get the shaft, unless the lawyer will only take the case with money up front. That in itself is a good indicator on how solid your case is.
Also if the client does a Jimmy Hoffa, doesn't have the coin, etc., the lawyer is still on the hook.

Back to this case, you guys are always nattering on about personal responsibility, it was the shop owners personal responsibility to secure the car.
No if, ands or buts, if he had just locked the doors and put the keys in the locked shop he would be 100% in the clear.

So the mother is responsible for the minor child, and who is responsible for the car ? Is a drunk adolescent going to be able to steal a locked car with no keys in it any more than a 3 YO kid ? At some point it becomes the responsibility of the person who has control of the keys, because for most people a car is not a projectile without them.

FWIW, I have a lot of sympathy for doctors in liability cases. Especially if they don't leave their keys in me before they sew me up. With people who routinely deal with other people's property, Those people I expect to secure that property, and especially items of great value, or items capable of doing great damage.

You know the answer to this. You just don't like it. Personally, I am fairly dispassionate about the whole affair. But I know who was supposed to secure the car. It wasn't the kid, it wasn't the mom.

So, same kids, the driver's car goes into the shop for repairs. His friend is leaving town for a week, and the driver asks him, since his car is broken, can he borrow the friend's car while he's out of town. The friend says sure, I'll leave the keys in the ashtray. He lets his landlord (who lives in the duplex with him) know he left the keys in the ashtray for his buddy. When the crash happens, is the landlord on the hook for 30% of the damages? Why or why not?

How about the kid finds an open car on the street and goes on google looks up how to hot wire that model car and up pops a utube video explaining how to do it. Are google and utube on the hook for 37%? They did supply the way to run the car (key).

Repair shop.

Can likely assume a customers car.

From the customers POV, who is responsible for his car getting stolen and wrecked?

No doubt if the car belonged to anyone on this thread we would blame the shop for not securing our vehicle.

If there was no trespassing and theft, the owner would be 100% in the clear.

On the other hand, I would be pissed at the shop owner for not securing MY car.

Obviously there are many ways to look at this.

Have fun.

Last time I checked, you don't need a key to start a horse.

Just curious how many of you guys leave your keys in your car in your garage?
Not sure about the shops insurer but the company that insures my shop specifies that keys must be kept in a lock box at night.

Do tell.

Boy. That question killed a once active thread

That's why we have laws ... to delineate... Then lawyers come along to question that delineation.

Kraftwerk makes a strong point - Last time I checked, you don't need a key to start a horse.

And what was the law regarding horse thieves? IIRC, the was NO sympathy for the horse thief. And, imagine, horses rarely crashed into things, causing further damage beyond the theft.

It is pretty easy to steal a car, even if the keys are not in it. A minor is a minor, 3 year old or 15, either way they are still a minor, and someone else is responsible for them, in theory.

If the responsible person is irresponsible, and the kid, whether they are 3 or 15 gets into trouble, the majority of the blame ought to rest on the irresponsible parent, not the people they steal from.

It would be different if he stole it from the owner, now, wouldn't it ? But he didn't. And it would be nice to believe that a modern car is just as easy to steal with or without the keys. But it isn't.

I'm going to pretend that this thread doesn't exist. Come back in a day or so and have the last word. I'm sure that will change accepted industry practices and insurance policy clauses not one bit, but it might make you feel better.

That's not what he said.

What he said "It is pretty easy to steal a car, even if the keys are not in it. A minor is a minor."

Which clearly reads to me that minors have access to car keys, regardless of whether they are 'hidden' in the ashtray of the car or not.

Seriously, how many parents keep the car keys (and spares) in a high security lock box?