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

A truly Canadian WTF judgement.....!!!

Ontario garage owner gets chance to fight liability for teen injured in stolen car crash | National Post

OK, a bit of a dumbazz for leaving the keys in the ashtray of an unlocked vehicle in an unlocked garage.....but still...?!?

The car owner is 'only' 37% responsible. And I suspect this is essentially a way to get money from an insurance company.

I don't leave my keys in my car because I know it could or would get stolen, that event is foreseeable. Hence the apportioned responsibility.

Sounds like they are all stupid. What kind of garage owner is too lazy to lock the cars and keep the keys inside?

^^^this

When did personal responsibility stop being PC?

If you are a low-life who doesn't care about right from wrong, it is not my job to go around shielding you from temptation.

If you steal, it's your fault and your fault only.
No one else's.
It doesn't matter if the ****ing keys are hanging from a big neon sign that says here are the keys, it's still all on the thief.

^^^I'm totally with the samster on this....

Oh, but I forgot one important thingy...

I must assure myself that the youth in my community are not able to take possession of such a dangerous object.......:rolleyes:!!

Personal responsibility goes both ways.

The jury then found the injured teen and the defendants negligent, but laid the bulk of the blame — 37 per cent — on the garage owner.

Last October, Ontario’s Court of Appeal refused to overturn the trial verdict, saying that Rankin did indeed owe J.J. a duty of care. It also found the jury’s findings reasonable.

“On the face of things, the notion that an innocent party could owe a duty of care to someone who steals from him seems extravagant, but matters are not so simple,” Appeal Court Justice Grant Huscroft wrote for the panel. “It is well established that the duty of care operates independently of the illegal or immoral conduct of an injured party.”

The Appeal Court found that ample evidence supported the conclusion of “foreseeability” that a car might be stolen.

Trial witnesses, the court noted, testified that Rankin’s Garage routinely left cars unlocked with the keys inside. 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.

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.

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 victim here is the garage and whoever those kids ran into

Ok so how would you consider trespassing in this event?

What if I hang keys on a big neon sign that says here are the keys, and some idiot steps onto the property, accidentally knocks over a nail gun and it shoots off his left testicle. No blame on the property owner?

What if I have an electric fence around my building, but not around my property, and no sign warning about the fence. Is no guilt on the property owner simply because the idiot illegally trespassed? Or does stealing the car somehow make it okay to not provide signage?

I hate the "a guy got sued for killing a burgler" story as much as anyone, but these issues are complicated.

OR... what if those "poor little drunken stoned children" got into my house via an open window "cause it's hot outside" and took the keys....

Don't you just love the hug a thug society we live in? LOL!;):D

They would likely argue that your house is secured, so not your fault.

Consider this scenario for a sec. You leave the keys in your car, in your driveway, unlocked, and an 11 year old kid takes it for a joyride and crashes. Who is liable?

OK, but what if they went to a playground, got swinging and jumped out and broke their necks? Do they need to lock the swings when no one is around?

Good point, but your house/car/business are private and the swing sets are public, so it would be more on par with a someone trying to sue the city because the steepness of a hill at the park caused them to roll down the hill and break their arm.

I'd want to ask the judge what they think about that.

OK, so what if it is my kids playset instead of a playground?

LOL I'm sorta glad to see this is not uniquely a USA phenomenon.

If your property is properly fenced, it wouldn't be on you. Goes back to the issue of not having a gate but having a pool. It isn't your fault someone slipped and fell into your pool and died, but it is yours for not having a fence.

This is why you shoot punks when you catch them breaking into your car. Blow their heads clean F***ing off.

It is unique to any society that isn't overly litigious and doesn't lack personal accountability. :(

So you are saying that if I have anything that can be dangerous, even a step they could trip on, I have to have a secured fence to keep everyone out so they don't hurt themselves? What if they try to jump the fence and break their neck, am I liable because I have not fenced the fence?

I'd say no because the fence displays reasonable effort to deter people from entering your property.

Do you think people with a pool should have a fence?

And ya I would. All it takes is some kid running from your neighbors lawn to yours and into the bear trap you were fixing.

I think it is a good idea to have a fence or some other obstacle to keep people out of the pool, yes. But there are many "dangerous objects" that people can get hurt or killed on in peoples yards. Why should I have to fence the whole yard to prevent other people from being stupid on it.

Maybe if they got on top of the roof of your house drunk, fell and killed themselves, then you are liable too because you failed to build a 50 tall fence on the edge of your roof to keep people off your property? :confused:

Perhaps if you left a ladder leaning up against your roof. What if the person was mentally disabled? A kid?

I'd say if it was an adult and drunk, their fault.

Remember, the two ppl in this crash are teens. 16 and 15. Not sure how this would play out of they were adults.

what if they put my ladder themselves there from the shed then claim it was there because the were too drunk?

I think you are on this one alone, pal.

Where are we going to stop making excuses for young people and hold them responsible for the wrong doing? The way we are going, it may just get worst.

You can generalize all you like, the judges reasoning was quite specific:

Quote:

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

And furthermore:

Quote:

ample evidence supported the conclusion of “foreseeability” that a car might be stolen.

The foreseeability of several of the examples people have proposed is questionable.

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.

Would still be different. The law will typically punish a business instead of holding a person accountable for being an idiot.

But like I said, if someone who is mentally disabled climbs a ladder that you left leaning up against your house, they would probably try and sue you. And if it was a kid, I'd be leaning towards holding you responsible as ****ty as that sounds. Especially if the kid requires further care.

I'm not saying I agree with it in every case, just that there are so many different scenarios.

Teens, eh, so you imply that would change the legal responsibility. If the kids are not fully responsible for their actions, their parents are, not the guy they stole a car from.
This

I wonder if the victims can appeal the ridiculous judgement.

Reasonable precautions. Reasonable person is not a thief, so that goes right out the window I guess.

You guys laugh, but something similar happened in Jax a while back.
Some kids climbed on a roof of a local school, broke a skylight and fell. They sued the school :eek:
Mind you, they fell while BREAKING INTO THE SCHOOL.

but did they win?

Sadly, the city paid them:mad:

Ugh. That's a fail...

Appeal? :confused:

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.

Sad new world.
I used to visit my grandmother in a small town in SD every body left the keys in their cars, they would leave them idling when it was cold to keep the heaters running. Never locked their car doors or houses.
I know the trash of the earth can live freely in big cities but this encouraging them and making efforts to protect them from injury while they conduct their thieving ways???

I am suppose to have compassion for people getting injured while stealing and find blame with some one who trust society? Not going to happen.

That is an age where they know better.